Reflection: Are Multiple CEOs a Good Idea?
Today in class – the 31st of October – we discussed the reading from Chapter three of ”Facilitating Organization Change” by Olson and Eoyang. The part of the discussion I found most intriguing was our treatment of the case study. In the case study, titled “Unpredictability vs. the Need for Control” Olson and Eoyang describe a CEO of a manufacturing and distribution company named Jules. Jules is a very efficient results-producing CEO, but he is eventually fired because the board of directors feel that he is too controlling and does not allow their viewpoints to be heard or discussed. The authors end their description of the case with the editorial: “Jules’ need for control closed his eyes to the energy and wisdom of the system as a whole.”
To better understand the dynamics in play in this case, Kevin gave us an assignment in class. We did a group exercise in which we - the students - played the role of the Board of Directors tasked with deciding what to do about Jules. First, we brainstormed options. One of the options suggested was that we have two CEOs. While this suggestion did make it onto the whiteboard as we wrote down all possibilities, it was not emphasized or considered as a genuine possibility. However, as the class exercise moved on to narrowing down and voting on possibilities (a process that did not produce a definitive or satisfactory result), I found myself really wondering: Is it possible to have two CEOs? Does this ever happen in business? Could it ever be a good idea?
A short hunt in LexisNexis Academic after class had ended yielded some interesting leads on those questions. The answer to my questions was: In Korea, multiple CEOs are very common.
“In the 1986-2004 period, 49.9 percent of the 519 surveyed businesses had two or more CEOs, compared to 37.9% or 254 out of the 669 listed businesses in 2002. The number of CEOs in a company stood at 1.6 on average. The research institute says that it shows a trend for owner CEOs collaborating with professional executives in the post-financial crisis period.” (The Korea Herald, February 8th, 2007 “Owner CEOs replaced by professionals; Companies tend to adopt plural CEO system.”) In this article, it was explained how the tension between founder CEOs and ‘professional’ CEOs was deal with – allow both of them to function in that capacity.
The question that came immediately to my mind was ‘How on earth could you make an arrangement like that work?’ Two CEOs? How could they come to any decisions? And wouldn’t that be really expensive to maintain two salaries at the highest level? However, an arrangement like this would have prevented the problem we learned about via a video case study in a previous class – when a board of directors appointed CEO was having to fire a vice president who had been the CEO during the founding stages of the company. The VP was very well respected, but he would not accept meaningful direction from the new CEO. If both of them occupied the highest position and had a really big stake in coming to an agreement, it might have been of great benefit to the company.
That having been said, the multiple CEO arrangement may be an example of the beauty of international cultural differences. I cannot fathom a multiple CEO arrangement working for very long in the US, but in Korea, it must work just fine. That is another learning moment for me about the profound influence of culture in business.
Reference:
The Korea Herald, February 8th, 2007 “Owner CEOs replaced by professionals; Companies tend to adopt plural CEO system.”
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Sowjanya Kodidala- Reflection
Ignoring the cultural issues in a global organization
In one of the videos we could see the consequences faced by a globalised company for ignoring the cultural issues in an organization. Ignoring cultural issues in a multinational company leads to many problems and mistakes that cannot be undone. The mistakes do teach lessons but the loss occurred due to the mistakes leaves a big loss to the company. We do learn from the mistakes done, but not before the company faces huge losses.
In the video, The CEO of a Japanese architecture company explains a project in which he faced cultural issues. The CEO talks about the project in which he faced constant barriers and created lots of tensions during the project. He mentions the case by briefing the basics of the project, the issues he faced and the choices he had to solve the issue.
The project consisted people from two different cultures – American’s and Japanese. The project was managed by a Program manager who was black man. As the project had people from different cultures they had issues on agreeing on one statement. The American people were experienced and stubborn. The Japanese team was stubborn too and they were arguing that as the project was taking place in Japan they knew better. The other major issue was the Japanese team had issues on taking orders from a female employee. The Japanese team did not tell that they had issues with PM, but they did show that they were not comfortable in taking orders from PM. So the CEO had cultural issues, female and male issues. So the CEO had the following few options to solve the following issues –
Terminate the project.
Remove the PM.
Replace the women in the team.
Try to convince the teams to work in a group.
I really don’t think terminating the project is a good idea as it effects the reputation of the company. The client might not be happy and approach their competitors which are not good for the company.
Removing the PM might be a good decision but I don’t agree with that as it’s not ethical, instead the Japanese people should be explained that in an organization every person is given the same value. The female employee in the Japanese team must be very smart and talented to be in that position. Also by removing PM or the female employee, the company might have to face discrimination law suits which are not good for the company.
The CEO can try to communicate and make the teams understand the effectiveness of working together and make them understand how they can work together and help each other. I suggest that the CEO changes the teams. The CEO can select the people who are willing to work under the PM and also work as a team.
The CEO had faced with such critical issues because he did not do his home work. As an experienced CEO he should have understood that people of different culture are involved. So the CEO should have explored the cultural issues before even thinking about involving American team and Japanese team. In a globalised company cultural issues play an important
role and they cannot be taken for granted.
He should also think about the people and their culture and their views before making a team. Because it is very difficult solve these issues later on. As in this case the Japanese team expressed their uncomfortableness with female employee and PM but there are no conversations or meeting where the Japanese team explained about their problems.
I think the CEO learned his lesson. He should have understood how important to understand the culture of the place before doing the project.
In one of the videos we could see the consequences faced by a globalised company for ignoring the cultural issues in an organization. Ignoring cultural issues in a multinational company leads to many problems and mistakes that cannot be undone. The mistakes do teach lessons but the loss occurred due to the mistakes leaves a big loss to the company. We do learn from the mistakes done, but not before the company faces huge losses.
In the video, The CEO of a Japanese architecture company explains a project in which he faced cultural issues. The CEO talks about the project in which he faced constant barriers and created lots of tensions during the project. He mentions the case by briefing the basics of the project, the issues he faced and the choices he had to solve the issue.
The project consisted people from two different cultures – American’s and Japanese. The project was managed by a Program manager who was black man. As the project had people from different cultures they had issues on agreeing on one statement. The American people were experienced and stubborn. The Japanese team was stubborn too and they were arguing that as the project was taking place in Japan they knew better. The other major issue was the Japanese team had issues on taking orders from a female employee. The Japanese team did not tell that they had issues with PM, but they did show that they were not comfortable in taking orders from PM. So the CEO had cultural issues, female and male issues. So the CEO had the following few options to solve the following issues –
Terminate the project.
Remove the PM.
Replace the women in the team.
Try to convince the teams to work in a group.
I really don’t think terminating the project is a good idea as it effects the reputation of the company. The client might not be happy and approach their competitors which are not good for the company.
Removing the PM might be a good decision but I don’t agree with that as it’s not ethical, instead the Japanese people should be explained that in an organization every person is given the same value. The female employee in the Japanese team must be very smart and talented to be in that position. Also by removing PM or the female employee, the company might have to face discrimination law suits which are not good for the company.
The CEO can try to communicate and make the teams understand the effectiveness of working together and make them understand how they can work together and help each other. I suggest that the CEO changes the teams. The CEO can select the people who are willing to work under the PM and also work as a team.
The CEO had faced with such critical issues because he did not do his home work. As an experienced CEO he should have understood that people of different culture are involved. So the CEO should have explored the cultural issues before even thinking about involving American team and Japanese team. In a globalised company cultural issues play an important
role and they cannot be taken for granted.
He should also think about the people and their culture and their views before making a team. Because it is very difficult solve these issues later on. As in this case the Japanese team expressed their uncomfortableness with female employee and PM but there are no conversations or meeting where the Japanese team explained about their problems.
I think the CEO learned his lesson. He should have understood how important to understand the culture of the place before doing the project.
Reflection - David Gui
The discussion today about the Good Technology video case was very intriguing and instructive as it brought up the point how organizational culture can impact a change management decision. To me, defining culture is never an easy task for any organization; it reflects the history of the organization and core values of the leadership. Ideally, leadership groups should establish the unique aspects of the local culture; however, systemic changes often require a change in local culture to allow new behaviors and attitudes to take hold.
Over time, leadership can create formal and informal rules or standards that become boundaries for acceptable behaviors in the organization. Leaders’ daily actions can clarify, encourage, or discourage the rules by providing signals regarding what is or is not really appreciated in the organization. This is why it is difficult to modify the behaviors consistent with change. In my opinion, because culture is so pervasive and has strong effects, a holistic and honest examination of organizational culture is essential prior to any change initiative. Here, I’m talking about the alignment of organizational culture with the intended change. If the intended change is dissonant with the organizational culture, it can be sabotaged even before it gets off-grounded. Therefore, change leaders need to be aware of any notable dissonance between existing culture and planned change initiative; if they really want the change to take place, they may first need to consider investing effort to modify the culture in order to support the change.
Changing an organization’s culture is not an easy process. Rather, it is a major and critical undertaking because it can affect the fundamental thinking, principles, and values of the organization and those who are in leadership positions. For most people, this is also a difficult personal transition. Here, motivation is a key to the cultural transformation; not only to first line workers but leaders as well. For leaders, they need to find out that in the existing culture, what component is encouraging or preventing the new desired change or mind set, then consider what would motivate people to exhibit that mind set and embrace change in order to deliver the desired performance.
Quite often, leaders will find out that existing behaviors support the old system rather than the new, and conflicts can be discovered between core values and desired mind set. In cases like this, leaders should think about what caused people to continue these behaviors, and what can be the motivator to get people changing them. Again, however, that motivator can be inconsistent with the existing organizational culture; but if leaders run their analysis and determine to let the change get off the ground, they will need to make whatever effort possible to embrace that motivator.
As aforementioned, leadership has a strong impact on organizational behaviors as a whole. When decision is made to modify the culture, an effective strategy is to modify leadership behaviors that would communicate the change and hold each other accountable. Just think about this, how does a manager’s habit of being late to meetings fit in an organization that is trying to encourage on-time delivery?
I also agree with the point that culture cannot save an organization when the situation is bad, since people are rational and self-protective. However, it does not mean that organizational culture plays no role in the change process. Perhaps there is no clear evidence that organizational culture has direct impact on either change success or failure, but I believe a change will not be successful and lasting if the organizational culture is not supportive. We are all aware of the argument that today’s organization must be adaptive to new market environment and open to change, and to me one of the backings behind this statement is an aligning and supportive organizational culture. I also think that it may depend on the characters of the organization; that the way organizations foster and value their culture is different based upon the organizations’ history and size. This would be an interesting area to study and hopefully by further learning, I will get more insightful ideas about it.
References:
To Lead, Align Your Values with Your Organization’s Goals. http://www.cio.com/article/104006/To_Lead_Align_Your_Values_with_Your_Organization_s_Goals
Over time, leadership can create formal and informal rules or standards that become boundaries for acceptable behaviors in the organization. Leaders’ daily actions can clarify, encourage, or discourage the rules by providing signals regarding what is or is not really appreciated in the organization. This is why it is difficult to modify the behaviors consistent with change. In my opinion, because culture is so pervasive and has strong effects, a holistic and honest examination of organizational culture is essential prior to any change initiative. Here, I’m talking about the alignment of organizational culture with the intended change. If the intended change is dissonant with the organizational culture, it can be sabotaged even before it gets off-grounded. Therefore, change leaders need to be aware of any notable dissonance between existing culture and planned change initiative; if they really want the change to take place, they may first need to consider investing effort to modify the culture in order to support the change.
Changing an organization’s culture is not an easy process. Rather, it is a major and critical undertaking because it can affect the fundamental thinking, principles, and values of the organization and those who are in leadership positions. For most people, this is also a difficult personal transition. Here, motivation is a key to the cultural transformation; not only to first line workers but leaders as well. For leaders, they need to find out that in the existing culture, what component is encouraging or preventing the new desired change or mind set, then consider what would motivate people to exhibit that mind set and embrace change in order to deliver the desired performance.
Quite often, leaders will find out that existing behaviors support the old system rather than the new, and conflicts can be discovered between core values and desired mind set. In cases like this, leaders should think about what caused people to continue these behaviors, and what can be the motivator to get people changing them. Again, however, that motivator can be inconsistent with the existing organizational culture; but if leaders run their analysis and determine to let the change get off the ground, they will need to make whatever effort possible to embrace that motivator.
As aforementioned, leadership has a strong impact on organizational behaviors as a whole. When decision is made to modify the culture, an effective strategy is to modify leadership behaviors that would communicate the change and hold each other accountable. Just think about this, how does a manager’s habit of being late to meetings fit in an organization that is trying to encourage on-time delivery?
I also agree with the point that culture cannot save an organization when the situation is bad, since people are rational and self-protective. However, it does not mean that organizational culture plays no role in the change process. Perhaps there is no clear evidence that organizational culture has direct impact on either change success or failure, but I believe a change will not be successful and lasting if the organizational culture is not supportive. We are all aware of the argument that today’s organization must be adaptive to new market environment and open to change, and to me one of the backings behind this statement is an aligning and supportive organizational culture. I also think that it may depend on the characters of the organization; that the way organizations foster and value their culture is different based upon the organizations’ history and size. This would be an interesting area to study and hopefully by further learning, I will get more insightful ideas about it.
References:
To Lead, Align Your Values with Your Organization’s Goals. http://www.cio.com/article/104006/To_Lead_Align_Your_Values_with_Your_Organization_s_Goals
Reflection - David Gui
In one of the earlier classes we talked about how organizational vision and mission can impact systemic change. To me, a change requires clarity in where the organization needs to go and why; vision and mission statements, therefore, should clearly point out the “where” and “why” which can lead the organization to the desired future. A lot of the times, however, as new needs for change arise, the original vision and mission are no longer relevant to current conditions; thus an organization’s documented visions simply become obsolete over time. However, rather than becoming insignificant, an organization’s visions should really always remain living maps pointing to the future.
In my opinion, many vision and mission statement do not accomplish much. Often organizations pay a lot of attention to perfection of the end products of vision and mission statements but ignore the values in processes of creating them. To me, the final written documents are much less important than the processes by which they are created; also, for many organizations, their written statements are prepared by an individual or small group, which I think can miss the real mark. For an organization to move forward systematically a vision of the future is more importantly in the hearts and minds of those who are impacted and therefore it is effective to involve as many members of the organizations as possible when creating vision and mission. My opinion is that simply writing vision and mission down does not matter that much, only living and sharing them does, thus the process of producing them is significant. Organizations should be aware that most people would not subscribe to someone else’s vision without an experience which connects.
As the written statements must be relevant to current conditions, it is beneficial that they also provide a clear picture what the future looks like after the change is implemented, as it must reflect what the leadership expects to get out of the change. And this is yet another reason why vision and mission should be generated based upon ideas contributed by every impacted stakeholder. That way, the vision and mission can be really shared among organization members, the expected future state is better understood, and commitment is built to that.
So, when organizations decide to implement a major change, perhaps it is also time for them to take out vision and mission statements, review them, and determine if they are still relevant to current conditions and consistent with the intended change. If not, a revision of the statements may be necessary. Also, regardless if it has to be a major revision or just minor changes, involve as many people as possible in the process. Because, really, having just an individual or a small group developing the vision and mission can miss the point, and many times, that point can be critical.
References:
So, You want to be a Change Agent. http://advice.cio.com/peter_manni/so_you_want_to_be_a_change_agent
In my opinion, many vision and mission statement do not accomplish much. Often organizations pay a lot of attention to perfection of the end products of vision and mission statements but ignore the values in processes of creating them. To me, the final written documents are much less important than the processes by which they are created; also, for many organizations, their written statements are prepared by an individual or small group, which I think can miss the real mark. For an organization to move forward systematically a vision of the future is more importantly in the hearts and minds of those who are impacted and therefore it is effective to involve as many members of the organizations as possible when creating vision and mission. My opinion is that simply writing vision and mission down does not matter that much, only living and sharing them does, thus the process of producing them is significant. Organizations should be aware that most people would not subscribe to someone else’s vision without an experience which connects.
As the written statements must be relevant to current conditions, it is beneficial that they also provide a clear picture what the future looks like after the change is implemented, as it must reflect what the leadership expects to get out of the change. And this is yet another reason why vision and mission should be generated based upon ideas contributed by every impacted stakeholder. That way, the vision and mission can be really shared among organization members, the expected future state is better understood, and commitment is built to that.
So, when organizations decide to implement a major change, perhaps it is also time for them to take out vision and mission statements, review them, and determine if they are still relevant to current conditions and consistent with the intended change. If not, a revision of the statements may be necessary. Also, regardless if it has to be a major revision or just minor changes, involve as many people as possible in the process. Because, really, having just an individual or a small group developing the vision and mission can miss the point, and many times, that point can be critical.
References:
So, You want to be a Change Agent. http://advice.cio.com/peter_manni/so_you_want_to_be_a_change_agent
Gints Salaks - Reflection
Layoffs and Salary cuts
Today when America and some other places of the world experience economical slowdown, many companies are stuck in crossroads on deciding how to make their organizations leaner. Whether it means laying off employees or suggesting pay cuts, either way, it is an unpopular decision among executive teams. In recent in-class video “Lay Offs and Salary Cuts”, the CEO’s suggestion on 10% salary decrease in his company was a disastrous idea because it resulted in a decrease in worker productivity and morale from the employees’ anger over pay cuts. I would like to talk in this paper not only about pay cuts and how demoralizing they are for the organizations, but I would also like to turn your attention to what’s going on in economy and how that influences employees and employers. Many employees are worried more about keeping their jobs rather than loosing some share in their salary.
Many of us today have noticed that employers give fewer bonuses, health benefits are getting thinner and lunch rooms are filled with less free food. According to Penelope Patsuris, most firms have already cut the fat out of their corporate structure, so further dismissals will only hinder a company's performance during already difficult times. Executives at companies everywhere have been seeing their salaries and bonuses slashed, but no one is about to feel sorry for the fat cats, much less protest such hardship. But cuts for the rank and file are a much more delicate issue.
Despite the fact that lay offs leave companies better financially in the short run, upon an economic recovery, an understaffed company will have a harder time gaining market share and will also have to incur the extra expense of hiring a new staff. Many organizations understand this dilemma and offer their employees the option to accept pay cuts. This situation can only happen in economical hardship and no employee will accept this offer during good times. As Greg Levine tells in his article, "We're all unhappy about the pay cuts, but there was no choice. It was either we agreed to this or we shut down, because we can't afford to operate."
As we can see in example above, employees are willing to accept salary cuts because they see that it will help them to save their jobs. That example has nothing to do with organization’s culture. As we mentioned this in-class, the organizational culture is left in second place when decision of saving your workplace edicts. For example, when Northwest Airlines was on the edge of bankruptcy, the pilot union and the company’s executives stroke a deal – “none of us are under the illusion that this agreement will permanently solve all of NWA's financial problems; it will not...However, it can help reduce the immediate and significant threats to NWA pilots' jobs and retirements.” In this case, it was also in the deal that Northwest executives will accept the same 15% salary cuts. This example shows that people are scared about their future and that’s why they choose to accept the deal rather than quit.
When the headquarters manage to deliver a clear and meaningful message to their employees, many will listen and try to negotiate the deal if the company has fallen in hardship, but the employees have to be prepared for that kind of message. It can’t just happen and be like “oh by the way, we will also cut your salary”. In this case, employees will be mistreated and abused. This situation happed in the video we saw in the class when the CEO announced laying off the engineering team, reducing overall company wide expenses, which included salary pay cuts. This message was unexpected and shocking. As we will see in the next example, the Republic of Latvia currently has the highest inflation in the whole European Union. To deal with this situation, the government suddenly decided to freeze all state salaries which led to statewide protests.
Today Latvia fights an inflation rate of 10% and all previous attempts to stop it has failed. A week ago or so, the prime minister of Latvia announced to the press that he proposes to “freeze” all state employee salaries. Suddenly, so many professionals like teachers, medical workers and culture employees decided to go on strike. Today when private sector has higher salary than state employees, many see this as an opportunity to leave their state jobs and work for a private sector. In my previous reflection, I mentioned that this is also a catalyst which channels bribery in the government. Now the government is in crossroads to figure out the next year’s budget so that state employees get their promised salary increase. The parliament will need to find other places where to save money and control the spiral of inflation. The government has argued that many state institutions have already ridiculous 10% or more salary increases per year. Some experts believe that it is a Catch 22 – people get more money, and they buy more. The seller increases prices, so the employee demands for more money, so the inflation goes up. As we see today there has to be a point where one agrees on stopping this spiral.
From this example, we can see that the people of Latvia are not ready to accept a salary decrease or “freeze” because this message was delivered so suddenly and unexpectedly that people started protests. If the government had come and presented more information, explained step by step next plans, the situation might have been different. Now, we have this situation like in the video, the people of Latvia are demoralized and trust the government has been lost. Only time will show if the government will be able to make a right choice regarding the salaries.
Sources:
Greg Levine. Steenland: Northwest CEO Joins Pilots in 15% Salary Sacrifice. http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2004/11/05/1105autofacescan06.html Forbes Magazine, 11-05-2004.
Penelope Patsuris. Pay Cuts Hit Rank And File. http://www.forbes.com/2001/10/26/1026paycuts.html Forbes Magazine, 10-26-01
Latvian News Portal. www.delfi.lv
Today when America and some other places of the world experience economical slowdown, many companies are stuck in crossroads on deciding how to make their organizations leaner. Whether it means laying off employees or suggesting pay cuts, either way, it is an unpopular decision among executive teams. In recent in-class video “Lay Offs and Salary Cuts”, the CEO’s suggestion on 10% salary decrease in his company was a disastrous idea because it resulted in a decrease in worker productivity and morale from the employees’ anger over pay cuts. I would like to talk in this paper not only about pay cuts and how demoralizing they are for the organizations, but I would also like to turn your attention to what’s going on in economy and how that influences employees and employers. Many employees are worried more about keeping their jobs rather than loosing some share in their salary.
Many of us today have noticed that employers give fewer bonuses, health benefits are getting thinner and lunch rooms are filled with less free food. According to Penelope Patsuris, most firms have already cut the fat out of their corporate structure, so further dismissals will only hinder a company's performance during already difficult times. Executives at companies everywhere have been seeing their salaries and bonuses slashed, but no one is about to feel sorry for the fat cats, much less protest such hardship. But cuts for the rank and file are a much more delicate issue.
Despite the fact that lay offs leave companies better financially in the short run, upon an economic recovery, an understaffed company will have a harder time gaining market share and will also have to incur the extra expense of hiring a new staff. Many organizations understand this dilemma and offer their employees the option to accept pay cuts. This situation can only happen in economical hardship and no employee will accept this offer during good times. As Greg Levine tells in his article, "We're all unhappy about the pay cuts, but there was no choice. It was either we agreed to this or we shut down, because we can't afford to operate."
As we can see in example above, employees are willing to accept salary cuts because they see that it will help them to save their jobs. That example has nothing to do with organization’s culture. As we mentioned this in-class, the organizational culture is left in second place when decision of saving your workplace edicts. For example, when Northwest Airlines was on the edge of bankruptcy, the pilot union and the company’s executives stroke a deal – “none of us are under the illusion that this agreement will permanently solve all of NWA's financial problems; it will not...However, it can help reduce the immediate and significant threats to NWA pilots' jobs and retirements.” In this case, it was also in the deal that Northwest executives will accept the same 15% salary cuts. This example shows that people are scared about their future and that’s why they choose to accept the deal rather than quit.
When the headquarters manage to deliver a clear and meaningful message to their employees, many will listen and try to negotiate the deal if the company has fallen in hardship, but the employees have to be prepared for that kind of message. It can’t just happen and be like “oh by the way, we will also cut your salary”. In this case, employees will be mistreated and abused. This situation happed in the video we saw in the class when the CEO announced laying off the engineering team, reducing overall company wide expenses, which included salary pay cuts. This message was unexpected and shocking. As we will see in the next example, the Republic of Latvia currently has the highest inflation in the whole European Union. To deal with this situation, the government suddenly decided to freeze all state salaries which led to statewide protests.
Today Latvia fights an inflation rate of 10% and all previous attempts to stop it has failed. A week ago or so, the prime minister of Latvia announced to the press that he proposes to “freeze” all state employee salaries. Suddenly, so many professionals like teachers, medical workers and culture employees decided to go on strike. Today when private sector has higher salary than state employees, many see this as an opportunity to leave their state jobs and work for a private sector. In my previous reflection, I mentioned that this is also a catalyst which channels bribery in the government. Now the government is in crossroads to figure out the next year’s budget so that state employees get their promised salary increase. The parliament will need to find other places where to save money and control the spiral of inflation. The government has argued that many state institutions have already ridiculous 10% or more salary increases per year. Some experts believe that it is a Catch 22 – people get more money, and they buy more. The seller increases prices, so the employee demands for more money, so the inflation goes up. As we see today there has to be a point where one agrees on stopping this spiral.
From this example, we can see that the people of Latvia are not ready to accept a salary decrease or “freeze” because this message was delivered so suddenly and unexpectedly that people started protests. If the government had come and presented more information, explained step by step next plans, the situation might have been different. Now, we have this situation like in the video, the people of Latvia are demoralized and trust the government has been lost. Only time will show if the government will be able to make a right choice regarding the salaries.
Sources:
Greg Levine. Steenland: Northwest CEO Joins Pilots in 15% Salary Sacrifice. http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2004/11/05/1105autofacescan06.html Forbes Magazine, 11-05-2004.
Penelope Patsuris. Pay Cuts Hit Rank And File. http://www.forbes.com/2001/10/26/1026paycuts.html Forbes Magazine, 10-26-01
Latvian News Portal. www.delfi.lv
Fred Bigjim - Reflection
Last week in class the subject of relationships and networks was brought up. Keeping in the spirit of Halloween I wanted to explore innovation in the ghost tours industry. This is not exactly a typical mainstream industry and for the most part this industry from a business side has sustained itself and grown by the relationships within the industry and word of mouth by customers. Many ghost guides from around the country are not only are friends with each other, but they also tend to promote each other. When I was at a haunted dinner mansion tour in California years ago the guide overheard my friend say something about Seattle and the guide told me to be sure to go see his friend “so and so” at the underground tour in Seattle and ask about the ghosts.
Many of these guides around the country and the world belong to a fairly tight community. Most stay in touch with each other via the internet and cross promote their friend’s ghost tours on any given one of the numerous paranormal society web sites that are dedicated to the promotion of ghost tours. Although this may not be a mainstream job it appears to be a growing industry because of the innovative ways that people in the business lure in new customers. They do so by maintaining good relationships with each other within the ghost tour community to help each other promote their tours. This creates a vast network from coast to coast and unlike some industries many in the ghost industry view each other not as competition but as an asset to their own business and the more tours that become successful the more popular the industry becomes as a result. This is due to the fact that many people that enjoy ghost tours are repeat customers so to say. Not repeating as far as going on the same haunted tour, but rather wanting to go experience new tours. Many customers look to a recent tour guide to recommend a tour in a different place which they plan to visit. A tour guide in Chicago will recommend a ghost tour in Kansas to a customer and this sort of inside referral holds more credibility with customers as opposed to a main stream travel agency ( for example for a river tour where real credentials are important). My guess is that people enjoy the idea of gaining their information from a direct source. In return other guides do the same and refer customers to their friends as well.
Another old tradition that the industry relies on is the customers’ word of mouth referrals to their friends. This tradition has been expanded upon again with technology with customers becoming a part of the social side of the industry by posting testimonials on blogs and web sites. An article in Entrepreneur.com titled Bewitching Business demonstrates how successful good relationships and networks can be in this industry with the story of a guide named Sandy Craig founder of Ghost Tours of St. Augustine Florida. Word of mouth grew and Sandy’s company grew in a thirteen year span from just her giving walking night tours into a profitable small business that employees twenty five guides and conducts group tours not only by foot, but by street cars and boats as well.
Of course it helps to have some local legend to capitalize on. One limitation with such ghost legends is that they do not lend well to growth per se. They tend to be locale specific. Therefore, the concept of opening more tours in other locations based on that legend would not be successful. The good news for tour business owners is that you do not necessarily have to worry about a new ghost tour business opening across the street with a new more extreme legend from another town. However, at the same time one cannot count on creaky sounds anymore to satisfy today’s thrill seeking customers. So how do you grow your business that is based on something as abstract as a location specific legend? The problem with this sort of industry is that if you just expand by adding more tours and making the tours bigger than the customers may not feel special while on the tour. One large appeal is the personal attention customers receive on small tours. So now one must grow while not being able to necessarily increase in numbers by paying customer. This seems to be being accomplished now by using technology in innovative ways. By integrating new technological gadgets into a tour for customers to use while on the tour it allows for the tour guide to charge much more now for a tour – many standard ghost tours range from $50 to $100 per person (more personal ones apparently charge through the roof). In order to keep customers happy with spending such money on something that could arguably be thought of as fraud (at least from my own personal perspective the idea of spending money to be near ghosts when ghosts do not exist could be somewhat fraudulent, however it is the experience that is technically what is being sold) most tours provide the customers with modern ghost detecting kits to use while on the tour. These range from technological advanced infrared motion sensors to electromagnetic field meters to thermal imaging machines and radiation fluctuation devices. Many in the business buy such gadgets from vendors that their friends have recommended (another example of relationships and networks at work within the industry).
By combining the abstract social thrill traditions of having fun by being scared with today’s cultural embracing of technological gadgets (toys) it appears that the ghost tour industry has found a good match for innovative growth. According to a story in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune this industry continues to grow “Cities and small towns nationwide have jumped on the ghost-circuit bandwagon, and thousands of ghost-hunting clubs have sprung up, turning ghost tourism into a multi-billion dollar business…” The story highlights the city of Savannah Georgia as an example of this growth stating that the city’s Visitor’s Bureau estimates approximately 70,000 visitors will take a ghost tour this year and in the process will help to add about 200 million dollars to the city’s economy. When I look objectively it still seems like a goofy way to make a living. However, from a small business perspective it may not be so bad. After all it is an industry where friends tend to help each other cross promote through relationships and networks, each legend is a perfect example of free reusability, and if one is not interested in being traditional it still is a way to make a decent living as an entrepreneur in a creative manner (beyond just tours many guides now offer ghost hunting classes and sell ghost kits to customers and all sorts of other silly things that piggy back off the basic draw of hoping that one will see a ghost – and it’s not like you have to pay the ghost to show up for work).
References:
Glanton, Dahleen (Tuesday, October 30, 2007). Chicago Tribune. Ghost tours parlay interest in the paranormal into big paydays for cities. Retrieved on October 31, 2007 from http://www.kansas city.com/news/nation/v-print/story/340153.html
Laura, Tiffany (October 30, 2007). Entrepreneur.com. Bewitching Business. Retrieved on October 31, 2007 from http://www.entrepreneau.com/management/operations/articl186070.html
Many of these guides around the country and the world belong to a fairly tight community. Most stay in touch with each other via the internet and cross promote their friend’s ghost tours on any given one of the numerous paranormal society web sites that are dedicated to the promotion of ghost tours. Although this may not be a mainstream job it appears to be a growing industry because of the innovative ways that people in the business lure in new customers. They do so by maintaining good relationships with each other within the ghost tour community to help each other promote their tours. This creates a vast network from coast to coast and unlike some industries many in the ghost industry view each other not as competition but as an asset to their own business and the more tours that become successful the more popular the industry becomes as a result. This is due to the fact that many people that enjoy ghost tours are repeat customers so to say. Not repeating as far as going on the same haunted tour, but rather wanting to go experience new tours. Many customers look to a recent tour guide to recommend a tour in a different place which they plan to visit. A tour guide in Chicago will recommend a ghost tour in Kansas to a customer and this sort of inside referral holds more credibility with customers as opposed to a main stream travel agency ( for example for a river tour where real credentials are important). My guess is that people enjoy the idea of gaining their information from a direct source. In return other guides do the same and refer customers to their friends as well.
Another old tradition that the industry relies on is the customers’ word of mouth referrals to their friends. This tradition has been expanded upon again with technology with customers becoming a part of the social side of the industry by posting testimonials on blogs and web sites. An article in Entrepreneur.com titled Bewitching Business demonstrates how successful good relationships and networks can be in this industry with the story of a guide named Sandy Craig founder of Ghost Tours of St. Augustine Florida. Word of mouth grew and Sandy’s company grew in a thirteen year span from just her giving walking night tours into a profitable small business that employees twenty five guides and conducts group tours not only by foot, but by street cars and boats as well.
Of course it helps to have some local legend to capitalize on. One limitation with such ghost legends is that they do not lend well to growth per se. They tend to be locale specific. Therefore, the concept of opening more tours in other locations based on that legend would not be successful. The good news for tour business owners is that you do not necessarily have to worry about a new ghost tour business opening across the street with a new more extreme legend from another town. However, at the same time one cannot count on creaky sounds anymore to satisfy today’s thrill seeking customers. So how do you grow your business that is based on something as abstract as a location specific legend? The problem with this sort of industry is that if you just expand by adding more tours and making the tours bigger than the customers may not feel special while on the tour. One large appeal is the personal attention customers receive on small tours. So now one must grow while not being able to necessarily increase in numbers by paying customer. This seems to be being accomplished now by using technology in innovative ways. By integrating new technological gadgets into a tour for customers to use while on the tour it allows for the tour guide to charge much more now for a tour – many standard ghost tours range from $50 to $100 per person (more personal ones apparently charge through the roof). In order to keep customers happy with spending such money on something that could arguably be thought of as fraud (at least from my own personal perspective the idea of spending money to be near ghosts when ghosts do not exist could be somewhat fraudulent, however it is the experience that is technically what is being sold) most tours provide the customers with modern ghost detecting kits to use while on the tour. These range from technological advanced infrared motion sensors to electromagnetic field meters to thermal imaging machines and radiation fluctuation devices. Many in the business buy such gadgets from vendors that their friends have recommended (another example of relationships and networks at work within the industry).
By combining the abstract social thrill traditions of having fun by being scared with today’s cultural embracing of technological gadgets (toys) it appears that the ghost tour industry has found a good match for innovative growth. According to a story in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune this industry continues to grow “Cities and small towns nationwide have jumped on the ghost-circuit bandwagon, and thousands of ghost-hunting clubs have sprung up, turning ghost tourism into a multi-billion dollar business…” The story highlights the city of Savannah Georgia as an example of this growth stating that the city’s Visitor’s Bureau estimates approximately 70,000 visitors will take a ghost tour this year and in the process will help to add about 200 million dollars to the city’s economy. When I look objectively it still seems like a goofy way to make a living. However, from a small business perspective it may not be so bad. After all it is an industry where friends tend to help each other cross promote through relationships and networks, each legend is a perfect example of free reusability, and if one is not interested in being traditional it still is a way to make a decent living as an entrepreneur in a creative manner (beyond just tours many guides now offer ghost hunting classes and sell ghost kits to customers and all sorts of other silly things that piggy back off the basic draw of hoping that one will see a ghost – and it’s not like you have to pay the ghost to show up for work).
References:
Glanton, Dahleen (Tuesday, October 30, 2007). Chicago Tribune. Ghost tours parlay interest in the paranormal into big paydays for cities. Retrieved on October 31, 2007 from http://www.kansas city.com/news/nation/v-print/story/340153.html
Laura, Tiffany (October 30, 2007). Entrepreneur.com. Bewitching Business. Retrieved on October 31, 2007 from http://www.entrepreneau.com/management/operations/articl186070.html
Monday, October 29, 2007
Reflection - Jun Shao
In Wednesday class, we were asked the question about the possible strategies of short term wins, easy or difficult, especially when we were the project managers of our first projects. No wonder, Kevin’s answer was very instructive. If you had the domain expertise and that was the reason why you had been chosen as the project manager, you might use your expertise to accomplish the project, starting with most difficult parts. Otherwise, when communication became you main job, you might start the project by talking with different persons and thus you could find the expertise to ensure the progress of the project as scheduled. Finally you would integrate all the efforts and resources to accomplish the project.
Kevin’s answer was focused on the project managers because the question was to ask for our possible actions of short term wins at the beginning. After the review of the class slides, I found it might be good to explore the question in other different dimensions.
Firstly, we can not always pay enough attention to project stakeholders. Kevin’s answer mentioned domain experts and team members. They are essential to accomplish projects. They were the executing force of projects. Without them, we could not ensure the possible progress of projects. However, I have to mention other stakeholders, boards, senior managers, and etc. They are the demanding force of projects. Without them, the projects can not even get necessary resources. We have to negotiate with them about budgets, timelines, and deliveries. As project managers, we have to leave them a positive impression at the very beginning and thus we can develop good relationship with them to get the continuous support of projects, which could decide whether the projects are successful or not.
Secondly, it is the project characteristics. Every project is unique. Some projects are very technique oriented. A domain expert, chosen as a project manager, may start to explore the technique issues. Some projects are cost sensitive. Their project managers prefer to work out cost saving plans and put them into practice at the very beginning. Other projects such as the Manhattan project (the first atomic bomb development project during World War II) might have strong security concerns, the project managers might work on firewalls, and authorization mechanisms to ensure all the data of the projects are well-protected. Even some projects are very similar. They are unique in their categories which differ from other project categories. As project managers, we will like to apply the experience of the similar projects. Meanwhile, we might pay attention to the uniqueness of the projects at the beginning. As Heraclitus, a Greece philosopher, said, you can not step into the same river twice.
Project context is another dimension. If you have worked for different organizations, you might find the way that they run their project are different. For example, IBM and Microsoft have different procedures to release their products even they are both the big Information Technique companies in the United States. Furthermore, organizations in different countries have much different project contexts. Diverse cultures, laws, and ethics all make quite different in running projects. In the East Asia, people are not as aggressive as the westerns. They are modest and tend to deliver their wins at the end of their projects since the custom there appreciates final results of success rather than short term wins at the very beginning. Fortunately, globalization begins to erase the barriers among different countries so that we can work together. The world is becoming flat. However, even two projects that one project team has worked on might have different contexts. For example, a project which started in a holiday season is different from the ones in the normal work days. The project manager had to ensure the enough work forces to achieve the progress of the project at the beginning since many team members had vocation at that time.
In all, there are many factors to decide our short term win strategies. The short term wins are one of the momentums to push the project team forward to reach its destination while the way to accomplish projects is not always even. We might think about the reasons why the road is not even and then work out the relative solutions to overcome those problems.
Kevin’s answer was focused on the project managers because the question was to ask for our possible actions of short term wins at the beginning. After the review of the class slides, I found it might be good to explore the question in other different dimensions.
Firstly, we can not always pay enough attention to project stakeholders. Kevin’s answer mentioned domain experts and team members. They are essential to accomplish projects. They were the executing force of projects. Without them, we could not ensure the possible progress of projects. However, I have to mention other stakeholders, boards, senior managers, and etc. They are the demanding force of projects. Without them, the projects can not even get necessary resources. We have to negotiate with them about budgets, timelines, and deliveries. As project managers, we have to leave them a positive impression at the very beginning and thus we can develop good relationship with them to get the continuous support of projects, which could decide whether the projects are successful or not.
Secondly, it is the project characteristics. Every project is unique. Some projects are very technique oriented. A domain expert, chosen as a project manager, may start to explore the technique issues. Some projects are cost sensitive. Their project managers prefer to work out cost saving plans and put them into practice at the very beginning. Other projects such as the Manhattan project (the first atomic bomb development project during World War II) might have strong security concerns, the project managers might work on firewalls, and authorization mechanisms to ensure all the data of the projects are well-protected. Even some projects are very similar. They are unique in their categories which differ from other project categories. As project managers, we will like to apply the experience of the similar projects. Meanwhile, we might pay attention to the uniqueness of the projects at the beginning. As Heraclitus, a Greece philosopher, said, you can not step into the same river twice.
Project context is another dimension. If you have worked for different organizations, you might find the way that they run their project are different. For example, IBM and Microsoft have different procedures to release their products even they are both the big Information Technique companies in the United States. Furthermore, organizations in different countries have much different project contexts. Diverse cultures, laws, and ethics all make quite different in running projects. In the East Asia, people are not as aggressive as the westerns. They are modest and tend to deliver their wins at the end of their projects since the custom there appreciates final results of success rather than short term wins at the very beginning. Fortunately, globalization begins to erase the barriers among different countries so that we can work together. The world is becoming flat. However, even two projects that one project team has worked on might have different contexts. For example, a project which started in a holiday season is different from the ones in the normal work days. The project manager had to ensure the enough work forces to achieve the progress of the project at the beginning since many team members had vocation at that time.
In all, there are many factors to decide our short term win strategies. The short term wins are one of the momentums to push the project team forward to reach its destination while the way to accomplish projects is not always even. We might think about the reasons why the road is not even and then work out the relative solutions to overcome those problems.
Reflection - Kate Bogh
Facilitating Organizational Change – chapter 3 – decision making model
Towards the end of chapter three there is a decision making model presented that is not as effective as other decision making models I have seen before so I wish to share my skepticism and offer up some alternatives. I do not believe that organizational change has to be as ‘uncertain’ as the chapter makes it.
The point of the chapter is that organizational uncertainty and risk exists and that we need to be aware of it and prepared to address issues that may arise. The point is well made.
Initially the model proposed towards the end of the chapter has an interesting perspective. It does a very good job of illustrating the uncertainties that may be present in all decision-making processes. The model is beneficial in that it takes accountability away from any one individual or group and suggests that the uncertainty in the decision itself makes the outcome no one person or groups’ responsibility. While this gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, I do not feel that this is an accurate model of the real world. In the real world we are all responsible for the decisions we make. The chapter allows us to separate ourselves from the result of the decision (thus allowing better decisions to be made?) but the separation between the responsibility and the decision is not what is important.
The reality is that decisions we make are our responsibility and we need to do learn to make the best decisions by weighing different options: the risks, benefits, and consequences. We need to be prepared to stick with our choices. It is like Kevin said in class; if you are the decision maker, and you make a decision, you need to be prepared to stick with it and deal with the results whether they are positive or negative.
The focus of the chapter is on decision-making teams though. Obviously, this makes things more complicated as there are more minds and perspectives involved. Facilities of Change suggest the model be used for the narrowing down and categorization of organizational issues to better determine which issues are actionable and which are not. Frankly, I think using the model is a waste of time that would be better spent really prioritizing the issues. ‘Luck’ and ‘randomness’ should not be terms that organizational issues should be characterized by.
I would suggest that generating an issue backlog, a prioritized list of issues with the most pressing and important the top and moving downward toward the less pressing issues can very well incorporate uncertainty without categorizing by luck or randomness or anything else. I believe a better categorization would be list of issues by urgency where different factors are considered such as issue importance and ease with which the issue may be addressed.
Understanding uncertainty and knowing that no change initiative is going to happen without modification and understanding how to adapt to uncertainty is important but the model takes it too far. I would argue that general team decision making models could apply here. I have placed links to a few below.
I am sure we will be talking more about this chapter in class but what is your perspective on it? Did you find the decision making model useful? Am I missing something important here? Really, I am not usually so cynical but, frankly, the decision-making model did not do much for me.
Here are a couple other suggestions for prioritizing organizational issues:
Towards the end of chapter three there is a decision making model presented that is not as effective as other decision making models I have seen before so I wish to share my skepticism and offer up some alternatives. I do not believe that organizational change has to be as ‘uncertain’ as the chapter makes it.
The point of the chapter is that organizational uncertainty and risk exists and that we need to be aware of it and prepared to address issues that may arise. The point is well made.
Initially the model proposed towards the end of the chapter has an interesting perspective. It does a very good job of illustrating the uncertainties that may be present in all decision-making processes. The model is beneficial in that it takes accountability away from any one individual or group and suggests that the uncertainty in the decision itself makes the outcome no one person or groups’ responsibility. While this gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, I do not feel that this is an accurate model of the real world. In the real world we are all responsible for the decisions we make. The chapter allows us to separate ourselves from the result of the decision (thus allowing better decisions to be made?) but the separation between the responsibility and the decision is not what is important.
The reality is that decisions we make are our responsibility and we need to do learn to make the best decisions by weighing different options: the risks, benefits, and consequences. We need to be prepared to stick with our choices. It is like Kevin said in class; if you are the decision maker, and you make a decision, you need to be prepared to stick with it and deal with the results whether they are positive or negative.
The focus of the chapter is on decision-making teams though. Obviously, this makes things more complicated as there are more minds and perspectives involved. Facilities of Change suggest the model be used for the narrowing down and categorization of organizational issues to better determine which issues are actionable and which are not. Frankly, I think using the model is a waste of time that would be better spent really prioritizing the issues. ‘Luck’ and ‘randomness’ should not be terms that organizational issues should be characterized by.
I would suggest that generating an issue backlog, a prioritized list of issues with the most pressing and important the top and moving downward toward the less pressing issues can very well incorporate uncertainty without categorizing by luck or randomness or anything else. I believe a better categorization would be list of issues by urgency where different factors are considered such as issue importance and ease with which the issue may be addressed.
Understanding uncertainty and knowing that no change initiative is going to happen without modification and understanding how to adapt to uncertainty is important but the model takes it too far. I would argue that general team decision making models could apply here. I have placed links to a few below.
I am sure we will be talking more about this chapter in class but what is your perspective on it? Did you find the decision making model useful? Am I missing something important here? Really, I am not usually so cynical but, frankly, the decision-making model did not do much for me.
Here are a couple other suggestions for prioritizing organizational issues:
- Miller, Jeremy D. “Prioritizing by Technical Risk Versus Business Value”. Codebetter.com April 10 2007. URL: http://codebetter.com/blogs/jeremy.miller/archive/2007/04/10/Prioritizing-by-Technical-Risk-versus-Business-Value.aspx - software developer chooses business value over technical risk
- National Defense University. “Strategic Leadership and Decision Making”. Chapter 11: Consensus Team Decision Making. URL: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr-dm/pt3ch11.html - clearly explains how to effectively gain team consensus decision making
- National Defense University. Decision Making resources. AirWar College Gateway to the Internet. URL: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thkg.htm#decisionmaking (scroll down to analysis and decision making).
- “Prioritization Matrix”. The Guide to Managing for Quality. 1998. URL: http://erc.msh.org/quality/pstools/psprior1.cfm - illustrates how to prioritize issues on a team. Could be used for general team or adapted to executives
Gints Salaks - Reflection
GRATITUDE GIFT - REFLECTION
In today’s reflection I would like to talk about what was brought up during one of the classes regarding what bribes and gratitude gifts mean in different cultures. As more people and corporations conduct business transactions across multiple borders in diverse cultures, different understandings regarding the tolerability of bribery generate ethical conflicts. Because our mind is shaped by our culture, many times when we travel across the world or see some discouraging international broadcast, we automatically think that what we see is wrong and unacceptable. To help people understand and resolve contrasting attitudes towards bribery, many cross-cultural research studies and academic theories reveal that such attitudes vary according to the ethical, social, and economic dimensions of a culture. According to Paul Herbig research, “attitudes towards bribery stem from the definition of the practice in a culture. Not only the definition, but the agents, conditions, limits, purposes, and laws pertaining to bribery vary among countries in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia.”
For example, in July of 2007, The Republic of Latvia elected a new president who before becoming the president was an orthopedic doctor. Valdis Zatlers was a well known doctor within Latvia and president of Riga’s orthopedic clinic, a very reputable hospital. Before he actually got elected, many asked how legitimate he is because many patients came forward and said that he accepted gratitude gifts from them. Even the Department of Income was involved and discussed the situation with Mr. Zatlers. Officially the law states that it is illegal to accept any gifts if you are employed by the state. In Latvia most of the medical positions are provided by the government, as the result, Mr. Zatlers illegally accepted gratitude gifts. But the other side of the story is that it is commonly accepted in Eastern European societies to give gratitude gifts to either speed up the process of getting something or somewhere.
So currently Mr. Zatlers has reached an agreement with the Department of Income that all his previously accepted gratitude gifts will be declared in his income and he will pay off the tax. Which brings up the question, is it acceptable for other public servants to accept gifts while they are in government or public positions? This issue is very common, but difficult to resolve. As I already mentioned, the law states that you can’t accept any gifts, but the culture allows it. I believe that the issue here in Latvia and other post communism countries is post communism syndrome. During the Iron Curtain era, one could achieve something only by bribing some higher positioned leader. Latvia is relatively new country and will eventually eliminate bribery, but for now it remains, a coin with two faces – it is illegal on paper but socially acceptable. Personally I think that the persistence of massive, inefficient bureaucracies in many countries such as Russia, Eastern Europe, and some nations of Asia may support bribery by paying inadequate salaries to the state employed and by poorly controlling commercial activities. Thus, individuals seek ways to supplement their income, making accepting bribes very tempting. Today Latvia tries to bring the standard of living up, but as they do so a new problem emerges, inflation.
The individuals and businesses that conduct commerce in foreign countries should not only adapt to local environments and rules, but also enforce international business ethics standards. These business standards regarding gift giving, grease payments, middlemen commissions, and other forms of bribery will encourage and show the local governments and business that playing a fair game is better.
It is proven fact that economic progress initiates ethical changes in a culture. Today when Latvia and many other Eastern Europe countries have joined the European Union, the standard of living is going up and economic development ultimately diminishes a people’s tolerance for corruption and bribery within government organizations. As Paul Herbig notes in his research, “perhaps as the world incomes equalize, ethical standards will also converge”.
Even though bribe might help some business in a short term, in a long term it not only ruins reputation, but also destroys healthy competition and economical growth. Individuals and businesses going to foreign countries should consider what impact they will leave on local social-economical environment if they decide to give bribes.
Resources: 1. Herbig, Paul. The Influence of Culture on Bribery: Some Ethical, Socio-political and Economic Considerations.
In today’s reflection I would like to talk about what was brought up during one of the classes regarding what bribes and gratitude gifts mean in different cultures. As more people and corporations conduct business transactions across multiple borders in diverse cultures, different understandings regarding the tolerability of bribery generate ethical conflicts. Because our mind is shaped by our culture, many times when we travel across the world or see some discouraging international broadcast, we automatically think that what we see is wrong and unacceptable. To help people understand and resolve contrasting attitudes towards bribery, many cross-cultural research studies and academic theories reveal that such attitudes vary according to the ethical, social, and economic dimensions of a culture. According to Paul Herbig research, “attitudes towards bribery stem from the definition of the practice in a culture. Not only the definition, but the agents, conditions, limits, purposes, and laws pertaining to bribery vary among countries in the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia.”
For example, in July of 2007, The Republic of Latvia elected a new president who before becoming the president was an orthopedic doctor. Valdis Zatlers was a well known doctor within Latvia and president of Riga’s orthopedic clinic, a very reputable hospital. Before he actually got elected, many asked how legitimate he is because many patients came forward and said that he accepted gratitude gifts from them. Even the Department of Income was involved and discussed the situation with Mr. Zatlers. Officially the law states that it is illegal to accept any gifts if you are employed by the state. In Latvia most of the medical positions are provided by the government, as the result, Mr. Zatlers illegally accepted gratitude gifts. But the other side of the story is that it is commonly accepted in Eastern European societies to give gratitude gifts to either speed up the process of getting something or somewhere.
So currently Mr. Zatlers has reached an agreement with the Department of Income that all his previously accepted gratitude gifts will be declared in his income and he will pay off the tax. Which brings up the question, is it acceptable for other public servants to accept gifts while they are in government or public positions? This issue is very common, but difficult to resolve. As I already mentioned, the law states that you can’t accept any gifts, but the culture allows it. I believe that the issue here in Latvia and other post communism countries is post communism syndrome. During the Iron Curtain era, one could achieve something only by bribing some higher positioned leader. Latvia is relatively new country and will eventually eliminate bribery, but for now it remains, a coin with two faces – it is illegal on paper but socially acceptable. Personally I think that the persistence of massive, inefficient bureaucracies in many countries such as Russia, Eastern Europe, and some nations of Asia may support bribery by paying inadequate salaries to the state employed and by poorly controlling commercial activities. Thus, individuals seek ways to supplement their income, making accepting bribes very tempting. Today Latvia tries to bring the standard of living up, but as they do so a new problem emerges, inflation.
The individuals and businesses that conduct commerce in foreign countries should not only adapt to local environments and rules, but also enforce international business ethics standards. These business standards regarding gift giving, grease payments, middlemen commissions, and other forms of bribery will encourage and show the local governments and business that playing a fair game is better.
It is proven fact that economic progress initiates ethical changes in a culture. Today when Latvia and many other Eastern Europe countries have joined the European Union, the standard of living is going up and economic development ultimately diminishes a people’s tolerance for corruption and bribery within government organizations. As Paul Herbig notes in his research, “perhaps as the world incomes equalize, ethical standards will also converge”.
Even though bribe might help some business in a short term, in a long term it not only ruins reputation, but also destroys healthy competition and economical growth. Individuals and businesses going to foreign countries should consider what impact they will leave on local social-economical environment if they decide to give bribes.
Resources: 1. Herbig, Paul. The Influence of Culture on Bribery: Some Ethical, Socio-political and Economic Considerations.
Manaswita - Reflection
Toyota’s innovative change
“The Machine that Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production by James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones and Daniel Roos”, the book that I am reading for the book review assignment is about Japanese conglomerate, Toyota Motor Corporation and about innovative and ground-breaking change in the form of “lean production”. This automobile manufacturer, currently the largest manufacturer of cars in the world, outshined the companies in the global auto wars by discovering the new concept of lean production. Today it is regarded as the most efficient and highest quality producer of motor vehicles in the industry. Result: the big names in the auto industry in America and Europe had to think hard of changing their old method of mass production.
Before Toyota pioneered its Toyota Production System or lean production, sixty years had already passed since the introduction of Henry Ford’s mass production system. Today the reality is that the lean production gave an edge to Toyota over American and European companies and they noticed and attempted to emulate Toyota's blueprint for success. Over the next 20 years, American and some European executives made regular trips to Japan to observe first hand why Toyota was so effective. Till to date most of the western companies have not been successful in implementing the Japanese trademark in their own factories.
It did not take long for Taiichi Ohno, Toyota’s chief production engineer and the pioneer of lean production, to realize after just one visit to Detroit, that Japanese company needed something different than mass production to compete with American companies. After few more visits he also realized that mass production is not the most efficient system of production and there can be something much better, something not thought of by the Big Three in Detroit. It was the right time to make the change, time to innovate something that could be more proficient and more resourceful.
New ideas emerge from a set of conditions in which old ideas no longer seem to work and then after a series of experiments back in Toyota’s headquarter, Toyota Production System was born. The Western production methodology, which Japanese tried to copy, did not work for them because they lacked the cash flow to fund the large inventory system required by the US mass production system. Thus, was pioneered the Just In Time (JIT) inventory system. Moreover, they lacked the space to build huge factory spaces and the natural resources which America is blessed with. It did not take them much long to comprehend that they cannot be copy-cat in this case and they need to innovate if they want to establish their foothold in the automobile industry, the fact most western companies have failed to realize.
Lean manufacturing became a unique example of the birth of an innovative idea and brought a radical change to the productivity and the product quality. Soon the companies in the West noticed and attempted to emulate Toyota’s blueprint for success and they ignored the fact that to be in the race and to bring the change the keyword is innovation and that the imitation is of no use. That is what Toyota did in the past and became world class by converting their problems into opportunities.
Reference:
The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production by James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones, Daniel Roos
“The Machine that Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production by James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones and Daniel Roos”, the book that I am reading for the book review assignment is about Japanese conglomerate, Toyota Motor Corporation and about innovative and ground-breaking change in the form of “lean production”. This automobile manufacturer, currently the largest manufacturer of cars in the world, outshined the companies in the global auto wars by discovering the new concept of lean production. Today it is regarded as the most efficient and highest quality producer of motor vehicles in the industry. Result: the big names in the auto industry in America and Europe had to think hard of changing their old method of mass production.
Before Toyota pioneered its Toyota Production System or lean production, sixty years had already passed since the introduction of Henry Ford’s mass production system. Today the reality is that the lean production gave an edge to Toyota over American and European companies and they noticed and attempted to emulate Toyota's blueprint for success. Over the next 20 years, American and some European executives made regular trips to Japan to observe first hand why Toyota was so effective. Till to date most of the western companies have not been successful in implementing the Japanese trademark in their own factories.
It did not take long for Taiichi Ohno, Toyota’s chief production engineer and the pioneer of lean production, to realize after just one visit to Detroit, that Japanese company needed something different than mass production to compete with American companies. After few more visits he also realized that mass production is not the most efficient system of production and there can be something much better, something not thought of by the Big Three in Detroit. It was the right time to make the change, time to innovate something that could be more proficient and more resourceful.
New ideas emerge from a set of conditions in which old ideas no longer seem to work and then after a series of experiments back in Toyota’s headquarter, Toyota Production System was born. The Western production methodology, which Japanese tried to copy, did not work for them because they lacked the cash flow to fund the large inventory system required by the US mass production system. Thus, was pioneered the Just In Time (JIT) inventory system. Moreover, they lacked the space to build huge factory spaces and the natural resources which America is blessed with. It did not take them much long to comprehend that they cannot be copy-cat in this case and they need to innovate if they want to establish their foothold in the automobile industry, the fact most western companies have failed to realize.
Lean manufacturing became a unique example of the birth of an innovative idea and brought a radical change to the productivity and the product quality. Soon the companies in the West noticed and attempted to emulate Toyota’s blueprint for success and they ignored the fact that to be in the race and to bring the change the keyword is innovation and that the imitation is of no use. That is what Toyota did in the past and became world class by converting their problems into opportunities.
Reference:
The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production by James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones, Daniel Roos
Friday, October 26, 2007
Reflection - Lokesh Ramani
VeriSign’s Oracle Implementation Project – Brian Lillie’s Strategy
The video case about VeriSign’s Brian Lillie brought out some interesting perspectives about forming a winning team against daunting tasks and deadlines. Brian Lillie’s constant references to “ERP Implementations” made me research further about the case to figure out the scale and size of the implementation which was required. My further research brought to light some clarifications which reaffirmed my assumptions that I had made in class during the video case study.
More information about the ERP implementation
Firstly, VeriSign implemented 2 modules for its supply chain/financials function for its invoice processing business processes and 1 module for its HR function to drive its employee self-service business processes. This is NOT an end-end implementation of an ERP package; an end-end implementation would involve automating about 7-10 specific modules and such an implementation would be impossible to complete in a 6-month time frame. Although, I agree that, even though the implementation at VeriSign involved only 3 modules, it was still a daunting task given the need to assemble a new team, bring the team to self-sufficiency and successfully implement the system within a short-time frame. I hope this clarifies the scale of the ERP implementation which was successfully completed at VeriSign.
Need for additional information
I was surprised with Brian Lillie’s strategy in assembling an internal team to work on the implementation. The video case study brought to light that there weren’t too many resources within the organization with the necessary experience and skill-set to implement a new ERP package. With a 6 month deadline, I expected Brian Lillie to select an external vendor with a strong portfolio of prior successful ERP implementations to take on the project. Consulting firms like BearingPoint, Capgemini, Deloitte Consulting, etc, have extensive ERP implementation experience and the ability to garner wide range of resources to work on an implementation project in a short-time frame. With a tight deadline and lack of strong internal resources, it seemed logical to me to consider an external vendor like the aforementioned to take up the implementation efforts. However, it should also be noted that these organizations offer their services at a heavy price. From my perspective, I would have liked to hear the various options that Brian Lillie considered and the constraints that he faced which eventually prompted him to adopt the strategy that he had mentioned in the case.
Key Constraints and workarounds
Talking about the dynamics of the core-team that Brian Lillie assembled, from my perspective, hiring the strong technical manager from BearingPoint was critical to the project. Analyzing the case, I identified the lack of resources with the relevant skill-set and experience within the organization as one of the most important constraints that Brian Lillie had to mitigate. The manager from BearingPoint had to own certain implementation efforts, which necessitated the look-out for more resources to take on the implementation. This manager could estimate the type of resources needed more effectively, since the manager was at the front-line of the implementation effort and understood the needs of the project better. Further, this manager had an extensive network in place from his previous relationship with BearingPoint. Analyzing the needs for implementation in terms of skill-set, experience and resources, this manager could tap back into his network and bring the relevant people into the project. This relieved some of the core hiring responsibilities for Brian Lillie. The manager-level resources of the implementation project analyzed the needs effectively and were able to drive the strategy for the project with their prior experience and network of contacts. The hiring of the manager from BearingPoint was an important strategic decision, which in-turn influenced the hiring process for the project and led to the formation of a strong core team which was able to implement the ERP package successfully.
References
1.) http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2004_dec/open06.html
2.) http://www.oracle.com/customers/studies/roi/verisign.pdf
The video case about VeriSign’s Brian Lillie brought out some interesting perspectives about forming a winning team against daunting tasks and deadlines. Brian Lillie’s constant references to “ERP Implementations” made me research further about the case to figure out the scale and size of the implementation which was required. My further research brought to light some clarifications which reaffirmed my assumptions that I had made in class during the video case study.
More information about the ERP implementation
Firstly, VeriSign implemented 2 modules for its supply chain/financials function for its invoice processing business processes and 1 module for its HR function to drive its employee self-service business processes. This is NOT an end-end implementation of an ERP package; an end-end implementation would involve automating about 7-10 specific modules and such an implementation would be impossible to complete in a 6-month time frame. Although, I agree that, even though the implementation at VeriSign involved only 3 modules, it was still a daunting task given the need to assemble a new team, bring the team to self-sufficiency and successfully implement the system within a short-time frame. I hope this clarifies the scale of the ERP implementation which was successfully completed at VeriSign.
Need for additional information
I was surprised with Brian Lillie’s strategy in assembling an internal team to work on the implementation. The video case study brought to light that there weren’t too many resources within the organization with the necessary experience and skill-set to implement a new ERP package. With a 6 month deadline, I expected Brian Lillie to select an external vendor with a strong portfolio of prior successful ERP implementations to take on the project. Consulting firms like BearingPoint, Capgemini, Deloitte Consulting, etc, have extensive ERP implementation experience and the ability to garner wide range of resources to work on an implementation project in a short-time frame. With a tight deadline and lack of strong internal resources, it seemed logical to me to consider an external vendor like the aforementioned to take up the implementation efforts. However, it should also be noted that these organizations offer their services at a heavy price. From my perspective, I would have liked to hear the various options that Brian Lillie considered and the constraints that he faced which eventually prompted him to adopt the strategy that he had mentioned in the case.
Key Constraints and workarounds
Talking about the dynamics of the core-team that Brian Lillie assembled, from my perspective, hiring the strong technical manager from BearingPoint was critical to the project. Analyzing the case, I identified the lack of resources with the relevant skill-set and experience within the organization as one of the most important constraints that Brian Lillie had to mitigate. The manager from BearingPoint had to own certain implementation efforts, which necessitated the look-out for more resources to take on the implementation. This manager could estimate the type of resources needed more effectively, since the manager was at the front-line of the implementation effort and understood the needs of the project better. Further, this manager had an extensive network in place from his previous relationship with BearingPoint. Analyzing the needs for implementation in terms of skill-set, experience and resources, this manager could tap back into his network and bring the relevant people into the project. This relieved some of the core hiring responsibilities for Brian Lillie. The manager-level resources of the implementation project analyzed the needs effectively and were able to drive the strategy for the project with their prior experience and network of contacts. The hiring of the manager from BearingPoint was an important strategic decision, which in-turn influenced the hiring process for the project and led to the formation of a strong core team which was able to implement the ERP package successfully.
References
1.) http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2004_dec/open06.html
2.) http://www.oracle.com/customers/studies/roi/verisign.pdf
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Reflection - Annie Wolf Mendoza
In the first chapter of the book I am reading for my book review (Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change, by William Bridges) the author makes a point of distinguishing between change and transition. He argues that change is a new situation, like a new job, boss, house, baby, etc. On the other hand, transition is the “psychological process people go through to come to terms with the new situation” (pg 3). I thought this was a really important point and I was surprised when I realized it hadn’t been so clearly addressed in The Heart of Change (if it was addressed at all). I find it particularly interesting because that book is so focused on the feelings and emotions surrounding any and all kinds of change. Managing Transitions really drives home the reality that in order to accept something new (be it a new way of doing something, or a new object or person) one must first make a transition. This is true for all kinds of change, whether it’s “good” (for example, getting married or buying a house) or “bad” (like being forced to use a new system or adhere to the rules of a new policy at work).
Bridges also addresses what he calls the “neutral zone”. This is the place between the old and the new (he also refers to it as no-man’s-land). The neutral zone is typically marked by feelings of discomfort, confusion, sadness, and even anger. I think a lot of people recognize this state and have experienced it at one point or another in their lives, even though they probably didn’t know exactly what it was. I know that I have experienced it, on more than one occasion, both in my personal life and in my work life. In fact, I can think of one very recent occasion. Over the summer I started my internship and at first it wasn’t really going well. I didn’t really know anyone and I didn’t know what I was supposed to be doing. I felt irritated and kind of depressed about having to go in to work every day. I found myself longing to go back to my job at the bank; a job which I had once really enjoyed, but that of which I had grown tired. I was confused; why did I suddenly want to go back to the bank so badly? Why was it more appealing to quit my internship and look for something altogether new than to stick with it? The answer is the neutral zone Bridges describes, which is a pretty scary place to be. I think it can be even more so if the change is supposed to be a happy one. Last summer I bought a house and moved out of my parents’ house. I had lived with them my entire life; I had never even rented an apartment on my own. I was moving in with my then fiancé which was really exciting, however I was also very sad and a few nights, after my fiancé had fallen asleep, I would lay there in bed and cry. I didn’t really understand why I was reacting so strongly; I had been looking forward to moving in with my fiancé and having our own place for a long time. I actually worried that there was something wrong with me, that my mind was trying to tell me something. The feelings passed after a few weeks, but that didn’t make them any less scary.
Now imagine what that kind of distress could do in a workplace-setting. Let’s say an employee is really excited about a prospective change at work. She is totally on board and looking forward to seeing the change plan put into action. She is prepared to do her part to make it successful and is very good at motivating others around her. So the change happens and she finds herself feeling frustrated and confused and depressed. She was prepared for excitement and enthusiasm, not anger and tears. This can really throw a person off and quite possibly destroy her faith in the change. She might think it is her gut instinct telling her that the change is wrong. This could have even more repercussions since she is an influential person in the company. Suppose she shares her feelings with others and finds that some people feel the same way. She might convince them that it’s an indicator that the change was a bad idea and should be abandoned.
It may sound exceedingly sappy, but I think you have to let people know about the neutral zone. They need to know what to expect; that the feelings they will experience are normal, and that just because they feel confused, angry, sad, frustrated, or whatever doesn’t mean the new way is bad. A good exercise to demonstrate this might be to set up a workshop and have people think about a good change in their lives. Have them list out all the reasons why the change was good, even if their reasons are qualitative (like, we always wanted to own our own home). Then have people write out the scary or bad things and feelings they experienced after the change occurred (like, we couldn’t eat out three nights a week anymore because we had the mortgage to pay). Ask them to compare those feelings to the ones they are currently experiencing at work. Just because it is scary or irritating doesn’t mean it is a bad thing. All change is hard and it’s emotional, whether it is happening at home or at work. People need to be reminded that this phase is normal and if they stick with it and lean on their support systems it will pass.
Bridges also addresses what he calls the “neutral zone”. This is the place between the old and the new (he also refers to it as no-man’s-land). The neutral zone is typically marked by feelings of discomfort, confusion, sadness, and even anger. I think a lot of people recognize this state and have experienced it at one point or another in their lives, even though they probably didn’t know exactly what it was. I know that I have experienced it, on more than one occasion, both in my personal life and in my work life. In fact, I can think of one very recent occasion. Over the summer I started my internship and at first it wasn’t really going well. I didn’t really know anyone and I didn’t know what I was supposed to be doing. I felt irritated and kind of depressed about having to go in to work every day. I found myself longing to go back to my job at the bank; a job which I had once really enjoyed, but that of which I had grown tired. I was confused; why did I suddenly want to go back to the bank so badly? Why was it more appealing to quit my internship and look for something altogether new than to stick with it? The answer is the neutral zone Bridges describes, which is a pretty scary place to be. I think it can be even more so if the change is supposed to be a happy one. Last summer I bought a house and moved out of my parents’ house. I had lived with them my entire life; I had never even rented an apartment on my own. I was moving in with my then fiancé which was really exciting, however I was also very sad and a few nights, after my fiancé had fallen asleep, I would lay there in bed and cry. I didn’t really understand why I was reacting so strongly; I had been looking forward to moving in with my fiancé and having our own place for a long time. I actually worried that there was something wrong with me, that my mind was trying to tell me something. The feelings passed after a few weeks, but that didn’t make them any less scary.
Now imagine what that kind of distress could do in a workplace-setting. Let’s say an employee is really excited about a prospective change at work. She is totally on board and looking forward to seeing the change plan put into action. She is prepared to do her part to make it successful and is very good at motivating others around her. So the change happens and she finds herself feeling frustrated and confused and depressed. She was prepared for excitement and enthusiasm, not anger and tears. This can really throw a person off and quite possibly destroy her faith in the change. She might think it is her gut instinct telling her that the change is wrong. This could have even more repercussions since she is an influential person in the company. Suppose she shares her feelings with others and finds that some people feel the same way. She might convince them that it’s an indicator that the change was a bad idea and should be abandoned.
It may sound exceedingly sappy, but I think you have to let people know about the neutral zone. They need to know what to expect; that the feelings they will experience are normal, and that just because they feel confused, angry, sad, frustrated, or whatever doesn’t mean the new way is bad. A good exercise to demonstrate this might be to set up a workshop and have people think about a good change in their lives. Have them list out all the reasons why the change was good, even if their reasons are qualitative (like, we always wanted to own our own home). Then have people write out the scary or bad things and feelings they experienced after the change occurred (like, we couldn’t eat out three nights a week anymore because we had the mortgage to pay). Ask them to compare those feelings to the ones they are currently experiencing at work. Just because it is scary or irritating doesn’t mean it is a bad thing. All change is hard and it’s emotional, whether it is happening at home or at work. People need to be reminded that this phase is normal and if they stick with it and lean on their support systems it will pass.
Sowjanya Kodidala - Reflection – Making a deal
In one of the video clips, we could see the issue faced by CEO of CRESCO Company. In this issue, he explained his experience on making a deal with other organization. I really liked the way the CEO solved the case.
Case Scenario – The CEO was looking for buying a store in California. The store was located at a prime location and it was the only store in that area. So when the store was out for sale, the CEO was very excited and looked forward to buying the store, and in this excitement he did not do his home work.
The results of his not doing the home work were -
1. He soon realized that the products quality at the store was bad and the customers were coming only because they had no other stores at that location.
2. The seller had promised to the CEO that he would sell all his products to him. But instead the seller was selling the products outside at a wholesale rate.
3. The CEO went to the store to review and asked employees at the store why they were using 300,000 worth security system. The employees replied that the security system dealer was store owner’s friend. The CEO was surprised to see that the employees knew this issue.
The CEO was in a dilemma whether to make a deal or not to make a deal. The CEO had the following options –
1. Not to make a deal – As the seller was having all products with bad quality. The seller was not honest. So the CEO was thinking not to make a deal as it is not feasible to make a deal with dishonest people.
2. Make a deal. After making a deal the steps would be
2.1 Renovate the store – The problems with renovating the store would be – 1. While renovation, the store would be closed. Seeing the store closed the customers would be moved to next available store. That is the home depot which is a good option. So there is a high risk of losing customers.
2.2 Trying to replace all the current employees – this is not a good option as the employees were working from a long time and they are local people. Also to get new people and training the employees would be a long process.
2.3 Marketing – Try to tell people that it is under new management. But the risk in this would be that though it is under new management, the people’s mind set wouldn’t change.
Class discussion
Based on the video clip, many of our classmates suggested –
1. He should not make the deal –
1.1 He might have a great loss. As in this case, most of the customers already started to go to home depot. He does not have a good strength of the customers.
1.2 The quality of the products was bad. It would be tough to change people mind set about this. Even though he changes the quality it would be tough to make people understand about the change in product quality.
1.3 It is a tough call as cultural issues also are involved. To deal with cultural issues would not be an easy task.
2. He can make the deal
2.1 Try to change the quality of the product.
2.2 He can also close the store and start again, making it look as a new store with new management.
2.3 Try to communicate and change customer’s behavior. Also make employees work in new terms or ask them to leave.
CEO final decision
The CEO sat with all his executives and had discussions. The CEO finally made the deal. For 90 days he spent most of the time at the store and helped the employees as well as customers. He started from scratch, giving training to employees, clearing all questions asked by customers, making them feel important. He finally made it a hit. J
My Analysis
The CEO did a good job by making the deal. As we know doing any sort of business is a risk. So I like the way CEO made the deal and took that very challenging. If the CEO did not make a deal, his competitor might have made the deal. So making the deal is a good choice. He could use marketing strategies and communicate with people about the improvement in the quality of the products and the change in management.
But the CEO should have done his home work before even thinking about making a deal. In this case CEO did not do his homework at the initial stages. As mentioned in heart of change, homework is one of the important steps to take before making a deal. He should try to know the people with whom he is trying to make the deal. HE should have done some research on the people he would be making a deal with? Also as Kevin mentioned the CEO should think about how much he is going to compromise when making a deal?
The CEO did make a deal with lot of gut feeling but in many cases it might fail. But in this case it had a happy ending.
Case Scenario – The CEO was looking for buying a store in California. The store was located at a prime location and it was the only store in that area. So when the store was out for sale, the CEO was very excited and looked forward to buying the store, and in this excitement he did not do his home work.
The results of his not doing the home work were -
1. He soon realized that the products quality at the store was bad and the customers were coming only because they had no other stores at that location.
2. The seller had promised to the CEO that he would sell all his products to him. But instead the seller was selling the products outside at a wholesale rate.
3. The CEO went to the store to review and asked employees at the store why they were using 300,000 worth security system. The employees replied that the security system dealer was store owner’s friend. The CEO was surprised to see that the employees knew this issue.
The CEO was in a dilemma whether to make a deal or not to make a deal. The CEO had the following options –
1. Not to make a deal – As the seller was having all products with bad quality. The seller was not honest. So the CEO was thinking not to make a deal as it is not feasible to make a deal with dishonest people.
2. Make a deal. After making a deal the steps would be
2.1 Renovate the store – The problems with renovating the store would be – 1. While renovation, the store would be closed. Seeing the store closed the customers would be moved to next available store. That is the home depot which is a good option. So there is a high risk of losing customers.
2.2 Trying to replace all the current employees – this is not a good option as the employees were working from a long time and they are local people. Also to get new people and training the employees would be a long process.
2.3 Marketing – Try to tell people that it is under new management. But the risk in this would be that though it is under new management, the people’s mind set wouldn’t change.
Class discussion
Based on the video clip, many of our classmates suggested –
1. He should not make the deal –
1.1 He might have a great loss. As in this case, most of the customers already started to go to home depot. He does not have a good strength of the customers.
1.2 The quality of the products was bad. It would be tough to change people mind set about this. Even though he changes the quality it would be tough to make people understand about the change in product quality.
1.3 It is a tough call as cultural issues also are involved. To deal with cultural issues would not be an easy task.
2. He can make the deal
2.1 Try to change the quality of the product.
2.2 He can also close the store and start again, making it look as a new store with new management.
2.3 Try to communicate and change customer’s behavior. Also make employees work in new terms or ask them to leave.
CEO final decision
The CEO sat with all his executives and had discussions. The CEO finally made the deal. For 90 days he spent most of the time at the store and helped the employees as well as customers. He started from scratch, giving training to employees, clearing all questions asked by customers, making them feel important. He finally made it a hit. J
My Analysis
The CEO did a good job by making the deal. As we know doing any sort of business is a risk. So I like the way CEO made the deal and took that very challenging. If the CEO did not make a deal, his competitor might have made the deal. So making the deal is a good choice. He could use marketing strategies and communicate with people about the improvement in the quality of the products and the change in management.
But the CEO should have done his home work before even thinking about making a deal. In this case CEO did not do his homework at the initial stages. As mentioned in heart of change, homework is one of the important steps to take before making a deal. He should try to know the people with whom he is trying to make the deal. HE should have done some research on the people he would be making a deal with? Also as Kevin mentioned the CEO should think about how much he is going to compromise when making a deal?
The CEO did make a deal with lot of gut feeling but in many cases it might fail. But in this case it had a happy ending.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Reflection - Annie Wolf Mendoza
I have been thinking quite a bit about the scenario presented in class regarding the architecture company working with a Japanese team in Japan on a new project. The problem the CEO of the architecture company encountered was one revolving completely around cultural differences. The American team consisted of both women and men as well as people of different racial backgrounds. The project manager was a black man and one of the more actively involved team members was a woman. She was frequently involved in asking questions of the Japanese team in order to gather important information about the project. It turns out that in Japan, people of color are seen to be less credible than white people and it is not custom for women to be placed in such leadership roles. These two factors caused the Japanese team a great deal of discomfort. The project manager and the woman could sense the team’s discomfort which as a result led to their own discomfort. The whole situation was very awkward and unpleasant for everyone involved. The CEO recognized the severity of the problem and decided that he needed to take some kind of action. Essentially, he had three options. One, he could continue on with his original project team. Two, he could assign a team of all white men to the project. Third, he could cancel the project altogether.
When I first started thinking about this situation, I thought it was really clear that none of the CEO’s options were ideal. To continue on with the same project team would only create more and more discomfort, both for the Japanese and the Americans. To remove the woman and the project manager from the team would be cause for a major discrimination lawsuit, and it would forever destroy any loyalty those two employees had for the company. Canceling the project altogether might cause the Japanese to lose respect and trust for the company, making it difficult for them to enter back into the market at a later time.
Since none of these options seemed very good to me, I started thinking of some alternative options. The first alternative that came to mind was to talk privately with the project manager and the woman and find out how they felt about the situation. The CEO could find out what their perceptions of the situation were and if they had either a strong desire to stay with the project or leave and be moved to another. If they both wanted to leave, then their positions could be filled with people who wouldn’t make the Japanese uncomfortable. However, if they both wanted to stay then another solution would need to be sought.
At first I thought this was a great idea; the employees would be the ones to make the decision to stay with the project or be placed on a different team with a different project. But, the more I thought about it, the less I liked this solution. Removing the employees (even if they had asked to be moved, or stated that they would have no problem moving to another project team) would send a message to the Japanese. It would tell them that any time they felt uncomfortable with the members on the American project team, the company would do whatever necessary to ensure their comfort, even if that meant removing people from the project. This would put an enormous amount of power in the hands of the Japanese. The might start extending that power into other aspects of the project, which would not be good for the American company. It might also send a message to the employees of the American company. If they did not explain the situation thoroughly and carefully to everyone in the company, employees might begin to think that the company was discriminating against people of color and women. This belief could really destroy morale and employees’ faith in the company.
In the end, the solution I came up with was to keep things as they were. The company shouldn’t cancel the project or move any of the team members to other projects. Instead, the CEO should work hard to ensure that both the Japanese and his American employees understand the other’s culture. The CEO should make sure the Japanese understand that he has faith in his team and that their word is a good as any other team member’s. He should also make sure his team understands that the Japanese have certain biases against people of color and women that may affect members on the team.
Reflection - Sinsath Shameer
Is fear the primary source as well as sustaining force of change?
There was a discussion in week 2 of the class on whether fear is the primary source as well as the sustaining force for a change.
I believe that fear results in a sense of urgency and this leads to initiating any change and this fear is again responsible for sustaining this change. Human beings strive on this and unless there is fear of competition, unless there is fear of losing the market, unless there is fear of not being able to maintain its reputation why would an organization need to change?
Company executives would be happy the way things are going. Why would there be any need to implement a new change or to grow the organization if they got all they want out of the business. The constant pressure to be one the top of the game, to be successful and to be profitable makes the organization seek for new and innovative ideas and hence an implementation of a new change strategy to improve and conduct itself in this competitive market.
One of the examples that someone suggested in class involves the 9/11 attacks. Since the attacks, the administration has been on high alerts to thwart any impending danger which ultimately resulted in the controversial Iraq war. The fear of being hit by WMD made the government to make the hasty decision to go for the war and there has been no easy way out for the administration with the current state in Iraq. How else can you can you justify this war based on a threat that was not clear, not direct and not imminent?
How many corporate transformations that are implemented by organizations are successful? Organizations must be aware that fear is a contributing factor for change and rather than reducing fear organizations should enhance the transformation process by harnessing fear to quickly change behavior. It is necessary to retain and communicate fear in order to have a rapid and long lasting organizational transformation. This doesn’t mean that you should dictate and rule the employees with fear, but what is necessary is to educate the employees about the dangers of not implementing the change, make them aware of your fears and the support that you need from them in this hour of crisis. Make them aware of how they would be affected if the change is not implemented. Your intention is not to create panic within the organization but to communicate in such a way that the employees understand the seriousness of the situation and you get their support along the way.
As mentioned earlier, communication is the key ingredient which enables the executives to stay in touch with the reality of the organization. Constant communication with the employees and reinforcing the initial ideas of the dangers of not implementing the change would create a sense of alertness among the employees and would enable them to stay focused on the change management initiative and to sustain the same.
References:
Class discussion
John P. Kotter and Dan S. Cohen, Heart of Change,
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=cahrswp
There was a discussion in week 2 of the class on whether fear is the primary source as well as the sustaining force for a change.
I believe that fear results in a sense of urgency and this leads to initiating any change and this fear is again responsible for sustaining this change. Human beings strive on this and unless there is fear of competition, unless there is fear of losing the market, unless there is fear of not being able to maintain its reputation why would an organization need to change?
Company executives would be happy the way things are going. Why would there be any need to implement a new change or to grow the organization if they got all they want out of the business. The constant pressure to be one the top of the game, to be successful and to be profitable makes the organization seek for new and innovative ideas and hence an implementation of a new change strategy to improve and conduct itself in this competitive market.
One of the examples that someone suggested in class involves the 9/11 attacks. Since the attacks, the administration has been on high alerts to thwart any impending danger which ultimately resulted in the controversial Iraq war. The fear of being hit by WMD made the government to make the hasty decision to go for the war and there has been no easy way out for the administration with the current state in Iraq. How else can you can you justify this war based on a threat that was not clear, not direct and not imminent?
How many corporate transformations that are implemented by organizations are successful? Organizations must be aware that fear is a contributing factor for change and rather than reducing fear organizations should enhance the transformation process by harnessing fear to quickly change behavior. It is necessary to retain and communicate fear in order to have a rapid and long lasting organizational transformation. This doesn’t mean that you should dictate and rule the employees with fear, but what is necessary is to educate the employees about the dangers of not implementing the change, make them aware of your fears and the support that you need from them in this hour of crisis. Make them aware of how they would be affected if the change is not implemented. Your intention is not to create panic within the organization but to communicate in such a way that the employees understand the seriousness of the situation and you get their support along the way.
As mentioned earlier, communication is the key ingredient which enables the executives to stay in touch with the reality of the organization. Constant communication with the employees and reinforcing the initial ideas of the dangers of not implementing the change would create a sense of alertness among the employees and would enable them to stay focused on the change management initiative and to sustain the same.
References:
Class discussion
John P. Kotter and Dan S. Cohen, Heart of Change,
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=cahrswp
Reflection - Sinsath Shameer
Dealing with the cultural issues when entering a new market
The video case about the Japanese architecture design company having cultural issues made me think about how important it is for a company to understand and research the culture of a new place or organization when entering a new market. Inter cultural issues are an integral part of doing international business. In a multi cultural organization, a lot of effort has to be put into managing and understanding each others culture. It is about embracing and respecting diversity; and inclusion of this diversity in the core company culture.
Culture of a new place directly relates to its customers and suppliers, relations with public affairs and with internal cooperation within the organization. Hence a lot of research needs to be made to understand the culture of a new market and a plan must be put in place on how to accept this cultural difference and turn it as an advantage for the new company. Cultural indifference is bound to happen but what is important is to accept the difference and learn to work around it and not against it.
There are many pitfalls encountered when market leaders choose to enter cross cultural borders. The common theme is that if you do not already possess the iconic brand, you must adapt to the indigenous culture. Below mentioned are some of the factors that companies should consider when structuring a global brand strategy:
Their brand message must relate to the culture of the new market. Translating your message into the local language is not enough to ensure that your intent will be understood or interpreted correctly. The difference in you and them is not just about the difference in language. It’s about the difference in the behavior and interpretation of same things differently.
Another factor is being aware of the perception of quality in different cultures. The quality of your implementation is always important when maintaining a certain brand image. However, while embarking cross cultural boundaries, what denotes the quality becomes less predictable and thus extremely important to decode. One good example is the experience of AT&T when they fulfilled an order to supply cables to NTT in Japan. Even though the cables met all the specifications that were laid out, the Japanese rejected it since it was ugly. AT&T executives were dumbfounded, does it matter that the cables were ugly? They were anyways intended to be buried underground. The reasons turned out to be that in Japanese culture, aesthetics are very closely related to quality and ultimately to soul. The ugliness of the cable to them implied that it had no soul.
Also companies should not make any assumptions when shaping the brand or communication strategy for a new market. Companies must be aware of the credibility of any claims and unless they have strong evidence that relates to a particular type of culture or behavior these claims should be considered suspicious. Any false assumption might lead to being seen as arrogant or insensitive, something that can impact your organization’s reputation.
Above all, you must be able to choose the right local partners whose core values reflect to your organizations’ values. Having the right people and the team with a culturally sensitive attitude could make all the difference in the definition of success in the new market. Local knowledge is the key, and companies must give utmost importance to understanding the local people and how your brand could relate to them. The employees should not only be able to understand and accept each others culture, but they should know how to work along with this diversity and make it as a benefit to all.
References:
Class discussion
http://www.tenet.no/cultural_differences.htmhttp://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/lessons-from-wal-mart-five-common-mistakes-when-brands-cross-bor
The video case about the Japanese architecture design company having cultural issues made me think about how important it is for a company to understand and research the culture of a new place or organization when entering a new market. Inter cultural issues are an integral part of doing international business. In a multi cultural organization, a lot of effort has to be put into managing and understanding each others culture. It is about embracing and respecting diversity; and inclusion of this diversity in the core company culture.
Culture of a new place directly relates to its customers and suppliers, relations with public affairs and with internal cooperation within the organization. Hence a lot of research needs to be made to understand the culture of a new market and a plan must be put in place on how to accept this cultural difference and turn it as an advantage for the new company. Cultural indifference is bound to happen but what is important is to accept the difference and learn to work around it and not against it.
There are many pitfalls encountered when market leaders choose to enter cross cultural borders. The common theme is that if you do not already possess the iconic brand, you must adapt to the indigenous culture. Below mentioned are some of the factors that companies should consider when structuring a global brand strategy:
Their brand message must relate to the culture of the new market. Translating your message into the local language is not enough to ensure that your intent will be understood or interpreted correctly. The difference in you and them is not just about the difference in language. It’s about the difference in the behavior and interpretation of same things differently.
Another factor is being aware of the perception of quality in different cultures. The quality of your implementation is always important when maintaining a certain brand image. However, while embarking cross cultural boundaries, what denotes the quality becomes less predictable and thus extremely important to decode. One good example is the experience of AT&T when they fulfilled an order to supply cables to NTT in Japan. Even though the cables met all the specifications that were laid out, the Japanese rejected it since it was ugly. AT&T executives were dumbfounded, does it matter that the cables were ugly? They were anyways intended to be buried underground. The reasons turned out to be that in Japanese culture, aesthetics are very closely related to quality and ultimately to soul. The ugliness of the cable to them implied that it had no soul.
Also companies should not make any assumptions when shaping the brand or communication strategy for a new market. Companies must be aware of the credibility of any claims and unless they have strong evidence that relates to a particular type of culture or behavior these claims should be considered suspicious. Any false assumption might lead to being seen as arrogant or insensitive, something that can impact your organization’s reputation.
Above all, you must be able to choose the right local partners whose core values reflect to your organizations’ values. Having the right people and the team with a culturally sensitive attitude could make all the difference in the definition of success in the new market. Local knowledge is the key, and companies must give utmost importance to understanding the local people and how your brand could relate to them. The employees should not only be able to understand and accept each others culture, but they should know how to work along with this diversity and make it as a benefit to all.
References:
Class discussion
http://www.tenet.no/cultural_differences.htmhttp://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/lessons-from-wal-mart-five-common-mistakes-when-brands-cross-bor
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Reflection - Shan Zhao
Managing change in Chinese culture
The video case discussion is a very rich learning experience to me. I can really put myself into the story tellers’ shoes and think what I would do in their positions. I also learned a lot from my classmates’ creative ideas and comments. The most interesting case is the Japanese architecture project. In this case, the Japanese professionals showed suspect to the capability of an American minority project manager and uneasiness of given instructions by a lady. The title of the clip was “Managing Cultural Diversity”, but problem seemed more like an ethical issue to the American company. Whether or not to replace the undesirable team members is an ethical choice. The company should take the ethical stance firmly, and if possible, educate the Japanese that they need to change.
The case made me think of another interesting question: given the eastern and western cultural differences, would the American change management theories and methodologies work in Asian countries, or more specifically, in the transitioning China? I’d like to explore this topic in the rest of reflection. First, let’s look at some unique cultural facts of China.
The traditional Chinese family-ism pervades into organizations where employees’ activities and personal lives are closely connected to the organizations they work. Relationship (refer to in Chinese GuanXi) at business and personal level plays a significant role in business management. Often, the interpersonal connections overpower the formal structure of the organization. The close relationship is established on shared value and trust. People targeted for participation in the change project react to the source of the message promoting the change itself (“if anyone else asked me to do this, the answer would be ‘no’. But because the request comes from you who I know and trust, I am willing to give it a try”) (Miles and Large, 2006).
Confucian principles teach Chinese to highly respect the authorities and the elders. From childhood, people are taught to follow all the rules and regulations, and kids learn to obey at home and school. It’s not that these people are not intelligent. They use their intelligence to adjust to the world rather than to change the world (Bono, 2006). You also see less facial expressions, because control of emotions, self discipline and self control is emphasized.
The Chinese people are group oriented. People find their own identities with reference to others and adopt group goals and opinions in exchange for reciprocal care and protection. People are not encouraged to express their thoughts or confront argument publicly. They shy from expressing opinions that are different from authority and majority. Traditionally, group pressure is applied to ensure conformity through eliciting shame (losing face) (Schlevogt, 1999).
With the Chinese economic reformation and openness, the market driven management and individualism have been growing quickly in the younger generations. However, the Confucianism, family-ism, group orientation philosophy and many others make Chinese culture distinctive and powerful. So what do they mean to us, the change managers? How the change management strategies should be adapted to Chinese unique culture? Here are some suggestions:
Empowering the change by utilizing the formal and informal network. Research showed relationship driven change strategies was the second frequently used strategies in Chinese change management (Miles and Large, 2006). The use of relationship and personal connections to promote engagement in change was a serendipitously identified change management strategy recognized through research into change management practice in State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in a Chinese business (Miles et al, 2002).
The leader should build trustworthiness and strengthen the bond with the employees. This may not seem much different with the Western world. But in reality, only when an employee has enough trust to the leader, s/he would start to speak out and share ideas with the leader. Otherwise, it would be difficult to collect sincere feedbacks.
Provide a transparent and encouraging environment to encourage people express their ideas. Make extra effort in soliciting feedbacks from employees. Reward for group performance, but don’t forget to reward the employees who jump on board and make contributions. There is an old Chinese saying: Rewards allure men to brave danger. Although monetary rewards are always welcomed, recognition in the group is often a desired reward.
Last but not the least, be observant. A great percentage of thoughts and feelings are not expressed explicitly, e.g. the discomfort to the lady in the Japanese project case. The leader needs to observe carefully employees’ behavior without judgment.
References
Bono, E. d. Business Possibilities: Don't discount possibilities lightly in your business strategy, Edward de Bono and Robert Heller’s Thinking Managers, July, 2006, http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/management/business-possibilities.php, accessed 10/18/2007
Fan Xing. The Chinese cultural system: implications for cross-cultural management. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 1995, Winter, p. 14-20.
Hirt, M. and Orr, G. Helping China's companies master global M&A. The Mckinsey Quarterly. August, 2006. http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?ar=1845 accessed 10/18/2007
Imai, G., Gestures: Body Language and Nonverbal Communication. http://www.csupomona.edu/~tassi/gestures.htm#asian, accessed 10/17/2007
Miles, M. and Large, D. Change Management in China – An application of Meta-Strategies Practice, 2006, IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, p126-130
Miles, M., A. Thangaraj, Wang, D., and Ma, H. 2002. Classic Theories – Contemporary Applications: a comparative study of the implementation of innovation in Canadian and Chinese Public Sector environments. Innovation Journal. 7 (3) p1-23
Schlevogt, K. 1999. Web-based Chinese management (WCM) - Toward a new management paradigm for the next millennium? Thunderbird International Business Review. 41(6) p 655-692
The video case discussion is a very rich learning experience to me. I can really put myself into the story tellers’ shoes and think what I would do in their positions. I also learned a lot from my classmates’ creative ideas and comments. The most interesting case is the Japanese architecture project. In this case, the Japanese professionals showed suspect to the capability of an American minority project manager and uneasiness of given instructions by a lady. The title of the clip was “Managing Cultural Diversity”, but problem seemed more like an ethical issue to the American company. Whether or not to replace the undesirable team members is an ethical choice. The company should take the ethical stance firmly, and if possible, educate the Japanese that they need to change.
The case made me think of another interesting question: given the eastern and western cultural differences, would the American change management theories and methodologies work in Asian countries, or more specifically, in the transitioning China? I’d like to explore this topic in the rest of reflection. First, let’s look at some unique cultural facts of China.
The traditional Chinese family-ism pervades into organizations where employees’ activities and personal lives are closely connected to the organizations they work. Relationship (refer to in Chinese GuanXi) at business and personal level plays a significant role in business management. Often, the interpersonal connections overpower the formal structure of the organization. The close relationship is established on shared value and trust. People targeted for participation in the change project react to the source of the message promoting the change itself (“if anyone else asked me to do this, the answer would be ‘no’. But because the request comes from you who I know and trust, I am willing to give it a try”) (Miles and Large, 2006).
Confucian principles teach Chinese to highly respect the authorities and the elders. From childhood, people are taught to follow all the rules and regulations, and kids learn to obey at home and school. It’s not that these people are not intelligent. They use their intelligence to adjust to the world rather than to change the world (Bono, 2006). You also see less facial expressions, because control of emotions, self discipline and self control is emphasized.
The Chinese people are group oriented. People find their own identities with reference to others and adopt group goals and opinions in exchange for reciprocal care and protection. People are not encouraged to express their thoughts or confront argument publicly. They shy from expressing opinions that are different from authority and majority. Traditionally, group pressure is applied to ensure conformity through eliciting shame (losing face) (Schlevogt, 1999).
With the Chinese economic reformation and openness, the market driven management and individualism have been growing quickly in the younger generations. However, the Confucianism, family-ism, group orientation philosophy and many others make Chinese culture distinctive and powerful. So what do they mean to us, the change managers? How the change management strategies should be adapted to Chinese unique culture? Here are some suggestions:
Empowering the change by utilizing the formal and informal network. Research showed relationship driven change strategies was the second frequently used strategies in Chinese change management (Miles and Large, 2006). The use of relationship and personal connections to promote engagement in change was a serendipitously identified change management strategy recognized through research into change management practice in State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in a Chinese business (Miles et al, 2002).
The leader should build trustworthiness and strengthen the bond with the employees. This may not seem much different with the Western world. But in reality, only when an employee has enough trust to the leader, s/he would start to speak out and share ideas with the leader. Otherwise, it would be difficult to collect sincere feedbacks.
Provide a transparent and encouraging environment to encourage people express their ideas. Make extra effort in soliciting feedbacks from employees. Reward for group performance, but don’t forget to reward the employees who jump on board and make contributions. There is an old Chinese saying: Rewards allure men to brave danger. Although monetary rewards are always welcomed, recognition in the group is often a desired reward.
Last but not the least, be observant. A great percentage of thoughts and feelings are not expressed explicitly, e.g. the discomfort to the lady in the Japanese project case. The leader needs to observe carefully employees’ behavior without judgment.
References
Bono, E. d. Business Possibilities: Don't discount possibilities lightly in your business strategy, Edward de Bono and Robert Heller’s Thinking Managers, July, 2006, http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/management/business-possibilities.php, accessed 10/18/2007
Fan Xing. The Chinese cultural system: implications for cross-cultural management. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 1995, Winter, p. 14-20.
Hirt, M. and Orr, G. Helping China's companies master global M&A. The Mckinsey Quarterly. August, 2006. http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?ar=1845 accessed 10/18/2007
Imai, G., Gestures: Body Language and Nonverbal Communication. http://www.csupomona.edu/~tassi/gestures.htm#asian, accessed 10/17/2007
Miles, M. and Large, D. Change Management in China – An application of Meta-Strategies Practice, 2006, IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, p126-130
Miles, M., A. Thangaraj, Wang, D., and Ma, H. 2002. Classic Theories – Contemporary Applications: a comparative study of the implementation of innovation in Canadian and Chinese Public Sector environments. Innovation Journal. 7 (3) p1-23
Schlevogt, K. 1999. Web-based Chinese management (WCM) - Toward a new management paradigm for the next millennium? Thunderbird International Business Review. 41(6) p 655-692
Reflection- Manaswita
Why trust is a key enabler of team success?
The topic of discussion for week 3 was “Team” and the issues related to building and guiding team and following questions were posed: when the team is not a team, what it takes to create a right team, the diversity in team etc. The interesting part of this topic was the issue of trust.
Often the managers come across the dilemma of quantifying trust in their employees by putting forth the questions such as “how much should I trust in my employees”. What does it take to build trust? How important the team trust is to the effectiveness of an organization? How to establish and maintain the trust in the team?
Trust is definitely a major key to organizational effectiveness as trust can make or break the project. Most IT projects fail partly due to human factors and all the more owing to the lack of trust among team members and team’s trust in the manager or vice versa. Building trust is not one day process and good resources generally tend to persist in working for the same company and for the same manager if they become successful in building and winning trust of manager they work for and the people they work with. It is the fact that the employees who believe in building upon and maintaining trust rise up the rank immediately than their counterparts who just believe in taking home a big fat pay check every month.
It is often seen happening in the IT industry where when the salary increment is not up to the employees’ expectations, most of them change the company and move to the organization that has more to offer in terms of money. Little they realize that once again they will have to go through the entire process of building upon and promoting trust within their new immediate work environment and with the new team or manager. The wise and smart employees stay back. For them money is not everything and they do not see opportunity in moving else where impulsively by putting the long built rapport and trust at stake because they know building trust around is not a simple one day work. It is a long term process and once employees gain trust of their managers or team, they become accountable and being questionable for decisions taken and for statements made etc is not a child’s play.
So, trust is not only about creating a bond with ones kith and kin in the personal life but it is also about proving ones worth in the company by taking a risk to be open to ones colleagues. Trust (the ability to make reliance and to inspire others) is both an emotional and logical act and one of the major factors in determining the Emotional Intelligence of an individual. It is well proved fact that people with high Emotional Intelligence Quotient are more successful in their professional life and they make good managers of the team they build and pilot.
What happens in the organization where trust is insignificant?
High rate of attrition
Less motivation to work
Loss of corporate knowledge
More investment in recruiting process
Trust is the pivot around which factors such as strong team, employee retention, healthy and effective communication and high productivity revolve.
The topic of discussion for week 3 was “Team” and the issues related to building and guiding team and following questions were posed: when the team is not a team, what it takes to create a right team, the diversity in team etc. The interesting part of this topic was the issue of trust.
Often the managers come across the dilemma of quantifying trust in their employees by putting forth the questions such as “how much should I trust in my employees”. What does it take to build trust? How important the team trust is to the effectiveness of an organization? How to establish and maintain the trust in the team?
Trust is definitely a major key to organizational effectiveness as trust can make or break the project. Most IT projects fail partly due to human factors and all the more owing to the lack of trust among team members and team’s trust in the manager or vice versa. Building trust is not one day process and good resources generally tend to persist in working for the same company and for the same manager if they become successful in building and winning trust of manager they work for and the people they work with. It is the fact that the employees who believe in building upon and maintaining trust rise up the rank immediately than their counterparts who just believe in taking home a big fat pay check every month.
It is often seen happening in the IT industry where when the salary increment is not up to the employees’ expectations, most of them change the company and move to the organization that has more to offer in terms of money. Little they realize that once again they will have to go through the entire process of building upon and promoting trust within their new immediate work environment and with the new team or manager. The wise and smart employees stay back. For them money is not everything and they do not see opportunity in moving else where impulsively by putting the long built rapport and trust at stake because they know building trust around is not a simple one day work. It is a long term process and once employees gain trust of their managers or team, they become accountable and being questionable for decisions taken and for statements made etc is not a child’s play.
So, trust is not only about creating a bond with ones kith and kin in the personal life but it is also about proving ones worth in the company by taking a risk to be open to ones colleagues. Trust (the ability to make reliance and to inspire others) is both an emotional and logical act and one of the major factors in determining the Emotional Intelligence of an individual. It is well proved fact that people with high Emotional Intelligence Quotient are more successful in their professional life and they make good managers of the team they build and pilot.
What happens in the organization where trust is insignificant?
High rate of attrition
Less motivation to work
Loss of corporate knowledge
More investment in recruiting process
Trust is the pivot around which factors such as strong team, employee retention, healthy and effective communication and high productivity revolve.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Reflection – Videos clips of different CEO’s - Sowjanya Kodidala
In the previous class we had an opportunity to view various video clips. In the video clips, CEO’s of different companies explained their experiences on treating critical issues in their organizations. I really liked the way these CEO’s presented the cases. The CEO’s gave a good overview of the scenarios. It was good to see that they started explaining about their company first and later explained the issue they faced. After explaining the issue, they explained the solution they implemented and also made a point to let us know if the solution worked or how it did not and if there could be the other solutions for it.
In many cases we viewed, I like the following case; a consultant goes to a company to give a 2 day strategic plan and was made the CEO of the company. On his first day, He notices that the company is split internally, where sales force team thinks they are the only important people in the company. They also behaved as though the corporate people did not exist. So the company had internal as well as external enemies. For the following case we suggested that the CEO should do the following - 1. Try to put sales force people in corporate people positions and place corporate people position into sales force position. If the CEO could try this for a week, the people might get a view of the others work. 2. Try to arrange public informal gatherings where different teams get a chance to interact with each other. 3. The CEO should wait and watch the company for 3 to 6 months before trying to implement any solution in the company. So that he would have a better understanding of the company personal and teams.
The CEO of the company asked the employees for 30 days and also assured that if any of the team people can leave the company after 30 days if they do not like what is done in the next 30 days. He also made a point to the sales force that without corporate people, the sales force team cannot move forward to achieve the goals. He explained by using an example of car racing where the corporate people were like oil and the sales force team the car, making them understand each teams importance. Also he encouraged the corporate people to hang up the phone if any sales force people were rude. In this way he could gain confidence in both the teams. Here he showed that the both teams are equally important to the organization. After 30 days, this solution did work well and then the CEO asked for 30 more days. This way he could solve the problems of the organization.
By the flowing case we can understand that the following factors are very important –
1. Communication – Communication is one of the key factors. The CEO could use example of the car racing which made the sales force people to understand better. As mentioned in the book heart of change, communicating to the audience very clearly and in their language is very important. He being the new CEO and also it was his first day in the company; many people would not be in a position to listen to him. But the way he communicated, got everyone’s attention. Like for example – when Microsoft’s CEO, Steve Ballmer gives a talk during the company meetings, he tried to get every employees attention and makes sure he is heard by everyone present.
2. Act Quickly - I really think acting quickly is a good way to approach the company issues. At the same time I feel it is important for the CEO to do home work which needs time. Here in this case, The CEO came to oeganization to give a strategic plan, S In this case, The CEO came to the company as a consultant to give a 2 day strategic plan, so he might have done his research on the company earlier. As mentioned in the book Heart of change, home work and earlier preparation plays an important role in situations like this. The CEO should understand the audience and should be prepared to face any kind of questions and be able to explain the audience in a way they can understand.
3. Ask for time and delivering the goals - As Kevin mentioned, this approach is a very effective way of handling things and also it is good to show the deliverables to the audience. Sometimes it might add urgency to complete things in given time.
4. Solve major issues – It is always a better approach to solve major issues of the company initially. This might help the company not to slow down their growth drastically. If we start solving small issues and by the time we reach to the major issues it might be too late to handle the situation. And the time that takes to solve the major issue would cost a lot at a later stage.
5. Constant reporting – Constant reporting helps employees to know what the CEO’s deliverables are. In many cases the CEO would not report about his tasks and employees wouldn’t be aware of what CEO tasks and deliverables are. The CEO should be reporting on a regular basis which helps him to understand his goals.
Case 2 – CEO communicating with his expert engineer
The other case I liked, the CEO explained about the situation where an engineer who was very valuable to the company was being rude to other employees in the company. The engineer’s behavior could not be accepted by rest of the employees and that caused an issue in the organization. To solve this issue, many of us in the class gave different opinions like sending the engineer to the counseling, isolating him from the other employees, videotape his behavior and showing him the tape. The CEO came up with one of the solution where the engineer was allowed to work from home for 3 days in a week and also sent the engineer to counseling for 2 hours per week. Finally it did not work so he was substituted by other employees whose skills matched with his skills.
In the following case the engineer agreed for counseling so there was a scope for improvement but in many cases people like this would not be happy to go for counseling, especially experts would never be willing to change their attitude. It is also very important to have very good communication skills to handle delicate issues. In this case, the CEO was very good and he could convince the engineer to work from home and go for counseling. If there was miscommunication, the employee would have immediately left the company. But finally it did not work. As I see it would not work in most of the cases because a company is a group of people. The organization can never be run by a single person. He might be very important asset to the company but not the only asset the company holds. I really think team work is one of the major factors for the company to run and grow.
In many cases we viewed, I like the following case; a consultant goes to a company to give a 2 day strategic plan and was made the CEO of the company. On his first day, He notices that the company is split internally, where sales force team thinks they are the only important people in the company. They also behaved as though the corporate people did not exist. So the company had internal as well as external enemies. For the following case we suggested that the CEO should do the following - 1. Try to put sales force people in corporate people positions and place corporate people position into sales force position. If the CEO could try this for a week, the people might get a view of the others work. 2. Try to arrange public informal gatherings where different teams get a chance to interact with each other. 3. The CEO should wait and watch the company for 3 to 6 months before trying to implement any solution in the company. So that he would have a better understanding of the company personal and teams.
The CEO of the company asked the employees for 30 days and also assured that if any of the team people can leave the company after 30 days if they do not like what is done in the next 30 days. He also made a point to the sales force that without corporate people, the sales force team cannot move forward to achieve the goals. He explained by using an example of car racing where the corporate people were like oil and the sales force team the car, making them understand each teams importance. Also he encouraged the corporate people to hang up the phone if any sales force people were rude. In this way he could gain confidence in both the teams. Here he showed that the both teams are equally important to the organization. After 30 days, this solution did work well and then the CEO asked for 30 more days. This way he could solve the problems of the organization.
By the flowing case we can understand that the following factors are very important –
1. Communication – Communication is one of the key factors. The CEO could use example of the car racing which made the sales force people to understand better. As mentioned in the book heart of change, communicating to the audience very clearly and in their language is very important. He being the new CEO and also it was his first day in the company; many people would not be in a position to listen to him. But the way he communicated, got everyone’s attention. Like for example – when Microsoft’s CEO, Steve Ballmer gives a talk during the company meetings, he tried to get every employees attention and makes sure he is heard by everyone present.
2. Act Quickly - I really think acting quickly is a good way to approach the company issues. At the same time I feel it is important for the CEO to do home work which needs time. Here in this case, The CEO came to oeganization to give a strategic plan, S In this case, The CEO came to the company as a consultant to give a 2 day strategic plan, so he might have done his research on the company earlier. As mentioned in the book Heart of change, home work and earlier preparation plays an important role in situations like this. The CEO should understand the audience and should be prepared to face any kind of questions and be able to explain the audience in a way they can understand.
3. Ask for time and delivering the goals - As Kevin mentioned, this approach is a very effective way of handling things and also it is good to show the deliverables to the audience. Sometimes it might add urgency to complete things in given time.
4. Solve major issues – It is always a better approach to solve major issues of the company initially. This might help the company not to slow down their growth drastically. If we start solving small issues and by the time we reach to the major issues it might be too late to handle the situation. And the time that takes to solve the major issue would cost a lot at a later stage.
5. Constant reporting – Constant reporting helps employees to know what the CEO’s deliverables are. In many cases the CEO would not report about his tasks and employees wouldn’t be aware of what CEO tasks and deliverables are. The CEO should be reporting on a regular basis which helps him to understand his goals.
Case 2 – CEO communicating with his expert engineer
The other case I liked, the CEO explained about the situation where an engineer who was very valuable to the company was being rude to other employees in the company. The engineer’s behavior could not be accepted by rest of the employees and that caused an issue in the organization. To solve this issue, many of us in the class gave different opinions like sending the engineer to the counseling, isolating him from the other employees, videotape his behavior and showing him the tape. The CEO came up with one of the solution where the engineer was allowed to work from home for 3 days in a week and also sent the engineer to counseling for 2 hours per week. Finally it did not work so he was substituted by other employees whose skills matched with his skills.
In the following case the engineer agreed for counseling so there was a scope for improvement but in many cases people like this would not be happy to go for counseling, especially experts would never be willing to change their attitude. It is also very important to have very good communication skills to handle delicate issues. In this case, the CEO was very good and he could convince the engineer to work from home and go for counseling. If there was miscommunication, the employee would have immediately left the company. But finally it did not work. As I see it would not work in most of the cases because a company is a group of people. The organization can never be run by a single person. He might be very important asset to the company but not the only asset the company holds. I really think team work is one of the major factors for the company to run and grow.
Reflection - Impact of the CEO in General Electric (GE) - Sowjanya Kodidala
The impact of CEO in General Electric (GE)
The class discussion about the CEO of GE was so interesting that it made me to think about the following questions –
What was the impact on GE while Jack Welch was the CEO of the company?
How was the new CEO elected after Jack Welch?
Who was the new CEO after Jack Welch? I did research on GE using online resources and found some related answers:
General Electric Company
In 1878 GE was founded in New Jersey. GE is into many different fields of businesses. GE produces transportation equipment, aircraft engines, medical imaging equipment kitchen appliance, laundry appliances etc:-
GE with CEO Jack Welch
Jack’s career in GE
Welch received M.S and a PhD at University of Illinois. Immediately after receiving his PhD in 1960 he joined GE. Welch worked for $10,500 per year as a chemical engineer. After his first year, he planned to leave the company as he was displeased with the $1,000 raise.
Reuben Gutoff, an executive thought that Welch was a valuable resource to lose. So Reuben took Welch to dinner and tried to convince him. Reuben also assured to work with Welch to change GE to a small company environment.
After 12 years at GE, Welch was elected as company Vice President. He was the youngest vice president of the company. In 1979 he became Vice chairman and in 1981 he became the company’s Chairman and CEO.
Jack as CEO of GE
Welch was the company’s CEO and chairman from1981 to 2001.
Welch tried to make GE a more competitive company. Welch wanted all the managers to be more productive and he made sure every manager became more productive.
Welch trimmed the inventories, shut down factories, salary cut offs and layoffs to cut inefficiencies. Due to all these actions, he was treated with disrespect and anger by his employees but in no time the employees learned respect to him due to his strategies. His strategy was so successful that it was practiced by many other CEO’s across Corporate America.
Welch had a reputation for his terrible straightforwardness in his meetings with executives. He would fire 10% of his managers every year and would also reward the top 20 % of managers with incentives like bonuses and stocks. He was responsible for expanding the stock options program from top executives to one third of all employees. He has also brought informality to the company by wiping out the nine layered management hierarchy.
In 1986, Welch had an office in GE building and also acquired NBS located in Rockefeller center. Through numerous merging, Welch helped GE to shift from manufacturing to financial services. In 1995, Welch adopted Motorola's Six Sigma quality program with success.
The year before Welch became CEO GE had $26.8 billion in revenues and the year before Welch left GE their revenues increased to $130 billion.
As a chairman and CEO, his trademark was to create an organization, not just to drive the performance in the individual businesses. In 1999 Jack Welch was named Manager of the Century by Fortune magazine. Welch received a salary of $4 Million per year at the time of his retirement and received $8 Million a year as his retirement plan.
Jack retirement
There was a length planning prior to his retirement between James McNerney, Robert Nardelli, and Jeffrey Immelt. Nardelli resigned in 2007 and became CEO of Home Depot. McNerney left to serve Boeing and became CEO of 3M. Immelt was selected to become as chairman and CEO after Jack Welch.
When Welch became CEO, his earlier boss Reg Jones announced the news. In the same way Welch announced Immelt as new CEO. Later Welch with his experience wrote a book Jack: Straight from the Gut
GE after CEO Jack Welch
After Welch, Jeff Immelt was selected as Chairman and CEO by GE's Board of Directors in 2000.
Summary
However, the analysis shows that there were performance differences of GE’s different business in terms of growth and profits.
References -
1. http://premium.hoovers.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/subscribe/co/overview.xhtml?ID=ffffrfjycffryjksjf
2. http://www.ge.com/company/history/bios/john_welch.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Immelt
6. http://premium.hoovers.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/subscribe/co/people/bio.xhtml?ID=ffffrfjycffryjksjf&OID=1086212
7. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/5thEdition/docs/16GE.pdf
The class discussion about the CEO of GE was so interesting that it made me to think about the following questions –
What was the impact on GE while Jack Welch was the CEO of the company?
How was the new CEO elected after Jack Welch?
Who was the new CEO after Jack Welch? I did research on GE using online resources and found some related answers:
General Electric Company
In 1878 GE was founded in New Jersey. GE is into many different fields of businesses. GE produces transportation equipment, aircraft engines, medical imaging equipment kitchen appliance, laundry appliances etc:-
GE with CEO Jack Welch
Jack’s career in GE
Welch received M.S and a PhD at University of Illinois. Immediately after receiving his PhD in 1960 he joined GE. Welch worked for $10,500 per year as a chemical engineer. After his first year, he planned to leave the company as he was displeased with the $1,000 raise.
Reuben Gutoff, an executive thought that Welch was a valuable resource to lose. So Reuben took Welch to dinner and tried to convince him. Reuben also assured to work with Welch to change GE to a small company environment.
After 12 years at GE, Welch was elected as company Vice President. He was the youngest vice president of the company. In 1979 he became Vice chairman and in 1981 he became the company’s Chairman and CEO.
Jack as CEO of GE
Welch was the company’s CEO and chairman from1981 to 2001.
Welch tried to make GE a more competitive company. Welch wanted all the managers to be more productive and he made sure every manager became more productive.
Welch trimmed the inventories, shut down factories, salary cut offs and layoffs to cut inefficiencies. Due to all these actions, he was treated with disrespect and anger by his employees but in no time the employees learned respect to him due to his strategies. His strategy was so successful that it was practiced by many other CEO’s across Corporate America.
Welch had a reputation for his terrible straightforwardness in his meetings with executives. He would fire 10% of his managers every year and would also reward the top 20 % of managers with incentives like bonuses and stocks. He was responsible for expanding the stock options program from top executives to one third of all employees. He has also brought informality to the company by wiping out the nine layered management hierarchy.
In 1986, Welch had an office in GE building and also acquired NBS located in Rockefeller center. Through numerous merging, Welch helped GE to shift from manufacturing to financial services. In 1995, Welch adopted Motorola's Six Sigma quality program with success.
The year before Welch became CEO GE had $26.8 billion in revenues and the year before Welch left GE their revenues increased to $130 billion.
As a chairman and CEO, his trademark was to create an organization, not just to drive the performance in the individual businesses. In 1999 Jack Welch was named Manager of the Century by Fortune magazine. Welch received a salary of $4 Million per year at the time of his retirement and received $8 Million a year as his retirement plan.
Jack retirement
There was a length planning prior to his retirement between James McNerney, Robert Nardelli, and Jeffrey Immelt. Nardelli resigned in 2007 and became CEO of Home Depot. McNerney left to serve Boeing and became CEO of 3M. Immelt was selected to become as chairman and CEO after Jack Welch.
When Welch became CEO, his earlier boss Reg Jones announced the news. In the same way Welch announced Immelt as new CEO. Later Welch with his experience wrote a book Jack: Straight from the Gut
GE after CEO Jack Welch
After Welch, Jeff Immelt was selected as Chairman and CEO by GE's Board of Directors in 2000.
Summary
However, the analysis shows that there were performance differences of GE’s different business in terms of growth and profits.
References -
1. http://premium.hoovers.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/subscribe/co/overview.xhtml?ID=ffffrfjycffryjksjf
2. http://www.ge.com/company/history/bios/john_welch.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Immelt
6. http://premium.hoovers.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/subscribe/co/people/bio.xhtml?ID=ffffrfjycffryjksjf&OID=1086212
7. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/5thEdition/docs/16GE.pdf
John Tulinsky - Reflection
Questioning American Values
Americans work more hours per week and have fewer days off than workers in any other developed nation (Suroweicki, J.; 2005). A number of blog posts have touched upon work/life balance and the general expectation of long hours and hard work. The Fast Company article commentaries by Usha and Daylen and a comment posted by Rachel in response to my own article review are a few examples. The expectation of long hours at work generally goes unquestioned. I believe this is unfortunate because excessive workplace demands have negative effects not just on individuals and families but on society—including businesses and the economy—as a whole. I intend to explore this issue in greater depth.
It’s easy to dismiss stress-related problems. Long hours and hard work have become so commonplace that most people simply accept them as part of life. However, multiple peer-reviewed studies published in respected medical journals have shown that the effect of stress on people is measurable and very real. Here are just a few examples;
· 43% of adults suffer adverse health effects from stress and 75-90% of all doctor’s office visits are for stress-related complaints (Kiffer, J.F.; 2006).
· Stressful jobs increase the risk of a heart attack in both men and women. The effect is measurable in individuals as young as 35 years old. Following their first heart attack people working in stressful jobs are more than twice as likely to have a second heart attack within two years (Aboa-Eboule, C. et al; 2007).
· Stress has been linked to increased susceptibility to depression, cardiovascular disease, HIV/AIDS, asthma, other autoimmune diseases and a generally less effective immune system (Cohen, S. et al; 2007).
· Stress is associated with alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse, domestic violence and with obesity. All of these conditions lead to many different health problems (Kiffer, J.F.; 2006).
· Family strains and long work hours are listed as the cause of many divorces (Marriage and Divorce; 2005).
I believe that there are three strong arguments why business people should be concerned about the long hours and high pressure that’s part of the American work place. The first is the moral argument. Is it ethical to build a business by squeezing employees until they break? The second argument is one of fairness. Some companies penalize employees for unhealthy lifestyles by charging them more for health insurance (Keim, B.; 2007). Given rapidly-growing health care costs it’s likely that this trend will continue. Is it fair to demand that employees maintain good health in their personal lives when the workplace itself is the cause of so much damage? Historically, insurance companies have driven much healthcare-related change, for example by lobbying for the requirement that all cars be equipped with passive restraints and by supporting the drive to eliminate smoking. It’s conceivable that insurance companies will punish employers for stressful work environments by charging higher premiums. A related argument and the one that is the easiest to defend is that of bottom-line costs. The costs that businesses bear because of the stressful work environment are enormous. Think of the health care costs associated with any one of the bullet points above. In addition to health care costs consider that stressful jobs are important contributors to high absenteeism rates and low morale and it’s easy to see that it’s in an employer’s self-interest to provide a better work environment.
I anticipate that a common response to this reflection will be, “Of course I’d like to have more time to relax, but what can I do? If I don’t put in the hours then my employer will find someone who will.” I’d like to write a preemptive rebuttal. We all work within the context of a specific organizational culture and of our society as a whole and there are limits to what is within our power to achieve. However, as Max pointed out in his post about the innovative leadership practices of a Navy captain, simply doing something because it has always been done that way and that’s how everyone else does it is an ineffective way to lead change. Strong leadership requires creative thinking and the courage to challenge the status quo. Without it, nothing will ever change.
References
Aboa-Eboule, C.; Brisson, C.; Maunsell, E.; Masse, B.; Bourbonnais, R.; Vezina, M.; Milot, A.; Theroux, P.; Dagenais, G.R. (2007). Job Strain and Risk of Acute Recurrent Coronary Heart Disease Events. JAMA, 298, 1652-1660.
Cohen, S.; Janicki-Deverts, D.; Miller, G.E. (2007). Psychological Stress and Disease. JAMA, 298, 1685-1687.
Keim, B. (2007, July 30). Lose Weight or Pay Up, Company Tells Workers. Wired Science. Retrieved October 16, 2007 from http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/lose-weight-or-.html.
Kiffer, J.F. (2006). The Effects of Stress on Your Body. WebMD Special Report. Retrieved October 16, 2007 from http://www.webmd.com/content/pages/7/1674_52147.htm.
Marriage and Divorce; (2005). National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved October 16, 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm.
Surowiecki, J. (2005, November 28). No Work and No Play. The New Yorker. Retrieved October 16, 2007 from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/28/051128ta_talk_surowiecki.
Americans work more hours per week and have fewer days off than workers in any other developed nation (Suroweicki, J.; 2005). A number of blog posts have touched upon work/life balance and the general expectation of long hours and hard work. The Fast Company article commentaries by Usha and Daylen and a comment posted by Rachel in response to my own article review are a few examples. The expectation of long hours at work generally goes unquestioned. I believe this is unfortunate because excessive workplace demands have negative effects not just on individuals and families but on society—including businesses and the economy—as a whole. I intend to explore this issue in greater depth.
It’s easy to dismiss stress-related problems. Long hours and hard work have become so commonplace that most people simply accept them as part of life. However, multiple peer-reviewed studies published in respected medical journals have shown that the effect of stress on people is measurable and very real. Here are just a few examples;
· 43% of adults suffer adverse health effects from stress and 75-90% of all doctor’s office visits are for stress-related complaints (Kiffer, J.F.; 2006).
· Stressful jobs increase the risk of a heart attack in both men and women. The effect is measurable in individuals as young as 35 years old. Following their first heart attack people working in stressful jobs are more than twice as likely to have a second heart attack within two years (Aboa-Eboule, C. et al; 2007).
· Stress has been linked to increased susceptibility to depression, cardiovascular disease, HIV/AIDS, asthma, other autoimmune diseases and a generally less effective immune system (Cohen, S. et al; 2007).
· Stress is associated with alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse, domestic violence and with obesity. All of these conditions lead to many different health problems (Kiffer, J.F.; 2006).
· Family strains and long work hours are listed as the cause of many divorces (Marriage and Divorce; 2005).
I believe that there are three strong arguments why business people should be concerned about the long hours and high pressure that’s part of the American work place. The first is the moral argument. Is it ethical to build a business by squeezing employees until they break? The second argument is one of fairness. Some companies penalize employees for unhealthy lifestyles by charging them more for health insurance (Keim, B.; 2007). Given rapidly-growing health care costs it’s likely that this trend will continue. Is it fair to demand that employees maintain good health in their personal lives when the workplace itself is the cause of so much damage? Historically, insurance companies have driven much healthcare-related change, for example by lobbying for the requirement that all cars be equipped with passive restraints and by supporting the drive to eliminate smoking. It’s conceivable that insurance companies will punish employers for stressful work environments by charging higher premiums. A related argument and the one that is the easiest to defend is that of bottom-line costs. The costs that businesses bear because of the stressful work environment are enormous. Think of the health care costs associated with any one of the bullet points above. In addition to health care costs consider that stressful jobs are important contributors to high absenteeism rates and low morale and it’s easy to see that it’s in an employer’s self-interest to provide a better work environment.
I anticipate that a common response to this reflection will be, “Of course I’d like to have more time to relax, but what can I do? If I don’t put in the hours then my employer will find someone who will.” I’d like to write a preemptive rebuttal. We all work within the context of a specific organizational culture and of our society as a whole and there are limits to what is within our power to achieve. However, as Max pointed out in his post about the innovative leadership practices of a Navy captain, simply doing something because it has always been done that way and that’s how everyone else does it is an ineffective way to lead change. Strong leadership requires creative thinking and the courage to challenge the status quo. Without it, nothing will ever change.
References
Aboa-Eboule, C.; Brisson, C.; Maunsell, E.; Masse, B.; Bourbonnais, R.; Vezina, M.; Milot, A.; Theroux, P.; Dagenais, G.R. (2007). Job Strain and Risk of Acute Recurrent Coronary Heart Disease Events. JAMA, 298, 1652-1660.
Cohen, S.; Janicki-Deverts, D.; Miller, G.E. (2007). Psychological Stress and Disease. JAMA, 298, 1685-1687.
Keim, B. (2007, July 30). Lose Weight or Pay Up, Company Tells Workers. Wired Science. Retrieved October 16, 2007 from http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/lose-weight-or-.html.
Kiffer, J.F. (2006). The Effects of Stress on Your Body. WebMD Special Report. Retrieved October 16, 2007 from http://www.webmd.com/content/pages/7/1674_52147.htm.
Marriage and Divorce; (2005). National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved October 16, 2007 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm.
Surowiecki, J. (2005, November 28). No Work and No Play. The New Yorker. Retrieved October 16, 2007 from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/28/051128ta_talk_surowiecki.
Video Case Study – Sales versus Corporate - Reflection - Bryce A. Smart
As we watched the video case study about the new CEO who had to settle a turf war between a construction supplier's sales force and their corporate support staff, my mind was immediately drawn to the case in The Heart of Change entitled "The Blues versus the Greens", wherein a new executive board had to settle partisan issues dividing their leadership. Given those similar situations, I was surprised at how such dramatically different approaches resolved these two sets of issues. In Blues versus Greens , the polite-speak was the key problem, whereas the construction supplier faced significant issues from a lack of politeness. Personally, I'd have thought that because the end goal of honest, open, professional communication was the same, that similar solutions would abet both groups. While similar solutions might work, I'm beginning to realize how important it is for behavior-changing solutions to be carefully crafted to the specific scenario.
Blues versus Greens
As I've thought about the Blues versus Greens case study, I realized that while the strategy taken by the discussion moderator worked in the end, other approaches may also have worked. In the case study, the moderator eventually became so frustrated by the executives' lack of honest communication that strongly reprimanded both sets of executives, dismissed them for the day, and got them practically fighting the next day. That technique was extremely risky for all sets of stakeholders. The moderator could have lost his appointment, the moderator's company may have lost reputation and contracts, the executives could have become even more divided, hurting their burgeoning corporation, shareholders in the newly-merged company could have suffered, potentially costing the company its vitality. What could a consultant, or new CEO, have done in that situation to end a turf war?
My recommendation is to host semi-formal debates over corporate issues—with a twist. For instance, if a director position is being discussed, the two executives who would be most likely to clash over that appointment would be asked to formally debate the appointment. Rather than campaign for their candidate, however, they would have to argue the case of a candidate from the other company. In this way, they would be forced to understand and internalize in the deepest way the value of their "internal competition". This forced crossing of the line between Blues and Greens, coupled with individual discussions between the CEO and other executives where private feelings and motivations can better be expressed, would help to mix the segmented group into a solid team without incurring the radical amounts of risk associated with encouraging an all-out brawl.
Race Cars
The risk of a brawl is clearly displayed in the construction supply company, where the sales force was a war with the rest of the corporate infrastructure. They flaunted the knowledge of their higher pay and treated the support staff as though they were beneath their contempt. The support staff, in turn, regarded themselves as the brick and mortar foundation of the organization and considered the sales team to be arrogant, churlish prima donnas. The ill-will between the two teams threatened the continued existence of the company. The new CEO was appointed not only amid this trench war, but specifically to diffuse it. He began with the sales force, flattering them by comparing them to a powerful, sleek race car. Then, he pointed out how even the fastest, best built cars require a skilled pit crew in order to win the race, let alone make one more lap around the track. The analogy seemed to sink in. He then turned his attention to the support staff, telling them how they existed to keep the race cars on the track. He reassured them of just how important they were to the continued functioning of the sales force and gave them permission to hang up on a rude salesman. Month-by-month, he asked them to give him just a little more time to improve things even more. After a while, his short-term wins paid off with a new, unified organization.
I was a bit surprised that a solution this simple worked. However, I'm also impressed by the other suggestions from class, particularly Blaine's suggestion that the sales team and support staff job shadow each other for a few days. This, coupled with the race car analogy could have an even more profound effect.
Building on the Race Track
As I tried to voice, but was not able to articulate with the clarity and depth I had hoped for, was another solution to support the race car concept—restructuring the sales teams. It is to this idea that I would like to devote much of the rest of this reflection.
Rather than leave the two groups in their existing state, with a line drawn in the sand between them, I would destroy that line utterly by reorganizing the organization into "customer teams". These teams would be headed by a senior salesperson, who would have a pit crew assigned specifically to his car. The pit crew would include all the other customer-facing elements in the organization—customer care, accounts receivable/payable, logistics/delivery, etc. This personalized customer service, where the care representative, as well as the salesperson, knows the names of their clients, works wonderfully in other major companies. Hanjin Shipping, one of the largest freight carriers in the world, uses this method. Each sales office is directly supported by a team of logistics specialists, accounts receivable/payable specialists, import/export booking specialists, and legal/customs experts. All for a single sales force. When a customer calls in, the booking team knows them by name, can recognize their voice and has developed a personal relationship with the point-of-contact on the client's side. This has worked so well for Hanjin that the company is able to charge shipping rates far more expensive than their larger competitors and still grow business. Applying the personalized service to the construction supply company would go a long ways toward building client relationships that departing sales personnel could not take with them.
This "racing team" structure is frequently used by major advertising agencies like Ogilvy & Mather and McCann Erickson. In these agencies, teams headed by a relationship/account manager handle specific clients brought in by that RM. These larger agencies that use the race-team structure have been successful, although it does add pressure to the teams to retain and expand their client base. These agencies have carried this concept to an extreme beyond what I would recommend for the construction supplier. When a team in an advertising agency loses a client, even to another team in the same company, they could potentially be disbanded completely, either reassigning everyone on the team to another force or firing them outright. That intense, cutthroat mentality would prove as destructive to this smaller company. Therefore, dire consequences would be replaced with incentives for those who finish that lap of the race in the best position.
Even with this new setup, the potential for a salesperson to consider him or her-self superior to their team still exists. To counteract this, the team's support staff would still have the freedom to hang up on anyone who is treating them cruelly, and also to immediately transfer to another team where the support staff is treated better. In this way, an arrogant, unkind salesperson would lose power and effectiveness as they acted negatively. They would fall behind their fellow racers without their pit crew and would be humbled into a behavioral change. Those salespeople who treat the support staff well would, in turn, be rewarded for their positive actions by moving to the front of the race and contending for team-wide prizes (for instance a team getaway for an extended weekend—significant others included). The incentive pay would also be extended to support staff. This would incentivize the entire team to gain more clients and better service their existing ones. The additional business would pay for the incentives and more.
In all, I believe this restructuring, coupled with taking advantage of the racecar mentality, would create a more agile, empowering environment that allows the organization to better-service customers while actively adapting to an evolving market as individual teams see new opportunities to improve their own strategies, serving as a pilot for the rest of the company. The value of the CEO's "race car" campaign is too compelling for me to ignore, and I believe it should be incorporated into any changes that occur within the organization. I guess that's why he's CEO and I'm not…
Resources
· Kevin C. Desouza. 2007. Class discussion. University of Washington, Information School. October 15, 2007. Seattle, Washington.
· Kotter, John P. and Cohen, Dan S. 2002. The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, Massachusetts.
· Michelle Smart worked at Hanjin Shipping for three years as an export booking specialist. She saw the effect and was told on numerous occasions how the personal interactions at all levels of the organization was the main reason people shipped with Hanjin, even though their rates were far higher than most carriers.
· Kelly, Kevin. 2004. Class discussion. Brigham Young University, College of Fine Arts and Communications. November 18, 2004. Before teaching at BYU, Kevin Kelly had been creative director at Ogilvy & Mather for 18 years, he was intimately familiar with the “pod” structure.
Blues versus Greens
As I've thought about the Blues versus Greens case study, I realized that while the strategy taken by the discussion moderator worked in the end, other approaches may also have worked. In the case study, the moderator eventually became so frustrated by the executives' lack of honest communication that strongly reprimanded both sets of executives, dismissed them for the day, and got them practically fighting the next day. That technique was extremely risky for all sets of stakeholders. The moderator could have lost his appointment, the moderator's company may have lost reputation and contracts, the executives could have become even more divided, hurting their burgeoning corporation, shareholders in the newly-merged company could have suffered, potentially costing the company its vitality. What could a consultant, or new CEO, have done in that situation to end a turf war?
My recommendation is to host semi-formal debates over corporate issues—with a twist. For instance, if a director position is being discussed, the two executives who would be most likely to clash over that appointment would be asked to formally debate the appointment. Rather than campaign for their candidate, however, they would have to argue the case of a candidate from the other company. In this way, they would be forced to understand and internalize in the deepest way the value of their "internal competition". This forced crossing of the line between Blues and Greens, coupled with individual discussions between the CEO and other executives where private feelings and motivations can better be expressed, would help to mix the segmented group into a solid team without incurring the radical amounts of risk associated with encouraging an all-out brawl.
Race Cars
The risk of a brawl is clearly displayed in the construction supply company, where the sales force was a war with the rest of the corporate infrastructure. They flaunted the knowledge of their higher pay and treated the support staff as though they were beneath their contempt. The support staff, in turn, regarded themselves as the brick and mortar foundation of the organization and considered the sales team to be arrogant, churlish prima donnas. The ill-will between the two teams threatened the continued existence of the company. The new CEO was appointed not only amid this trench war, but specifically to diffuse it. He began with the sales force, flattering them by comparing them to a powerful, sleek race car. Then, he pointed out how even the fastest, best built cars require a skilled pit crew in order to win the race, let alone make one more lap around the track. The analogy seemed to sink in. He then turned his attention to the support staff, telling them how they existed to keep the race cars on the track. He reassured them of just how important they were to the continued functioning of the sales force and gave them permission to hang up on a rude salesman. Month-by-month, he asked them to give him just a little more time to improve things even more. After a while, his short-term wins paid off with a new, unified organization.
I was a bit surprised that a solution this simple worked. However, I'm also impressed by the other suggestions from class, particularly Blaine's suggestion that the sales team and support staff job shadow each other for a few days. This, coupled with the race car analogy could have an even more profound effect.
Building on the Race Track
As I tried to voice, but was not able to articulate with the clarity and depth I had hoped for, was another solution to support the race car concept—restructuring the sales teams. It is to this idea that I would like to devote much of the rest of this reflection.
Rather than leave the two groups in their existing state, with a line drawn in the sand between them, I would destroy that line utterly by reorganizing the organization into "customer teams". These teams would be headed by a senior salesperson, who would have a pit crew assigned specifically to his car. The pit crew would include all the other customer-facing elements in the organization—customer care, accounts receivable/payable, logistics/delivery, etc. This personalized customer service, where the care representative, as well as the salesperson, knows the names of their clients, works wonderfully in other major companies. Hanjin Shipping, one of the largest freight carriers in the world, uses this method. Each sales office is directly supported by a team of logistics specialists, accounts receivable/payable specialists, import/export booking specialists, and legal/customs experts. All for a single sales force. When a customer calls in, the booking team knows them by name, can recognize their voice and has developed a personal relationship with the point-of-contact on the client's side. This has worked so well for Hanjin that the company is able to charge shipping rates far more expensive than their larger competitors and still grow business. Applying the personalized service to the construction supply company would go a long ways toward building client relationships that departing sales personnel could not take with them.
This "racing team" structure is frequently used by major advertising agencies like Ogilvy & Mather and McCann Erickson. In these agencies, teams headed by a relationship/account manager handle specific clients brought in by that RM. These larger agencies that use the race-team structure have been successful, although it does add pressure to the teams to retain and expand their client base. These agencies have carried this concept to an extreme beyond what I would recommend for the construction supplier. When a team in an advertising agency loses a client, even to another team in the same company, they could potentially be disbanded completely, either reassigning everyone on the team to another force or firing them outright. That intense, cutthroat mentality would prove as destructive to this smaller company. Therefore, dire consequences would be replaced with incentives for those who finish that lap of the race in the best position.
Even with this new setup, the potential for a salesperson to consider him or her-self superior to their team still exists. To counteract this, the team's support staff would still have the freedom to hang up on anyone who is treating them cruelly, and also to immediately transfer to another team where the support staff is treated better. In this way, an arrogant, unkind salesperson would lose power and effectiveness as they acted negatively. They would fall behind their fellow racers without their pit crew and would be humbled into a behavioral change. Those salespeople who treat the support staff well would, in turn, be rewarded for their positive actions by moving to the front of the race and contending for team-wide prizes (for instance a team getaway for an extended weekend—significant others included). The incentive pay would also be extended to support staff. This would incentivize the entire team to gain more clients and better service their existing ones. The additional business would pay for the incentives and more.
In all, I believe this restructuring, coupled with taking advantage of the racecar mentality, would create a more agile, empowering environment that allows the organization to better-service customers while actively adapting to an evolving market as individual teams see new opportunities to improve their own strategies, serving as a pilot for the rest of the company. The value of the CEO's "race car" campaign is too compelling for me to ignore, and I believe it should be incorporated into any changes that occur within the organization. I guess that's why he's CEO and I'm not…
Resources
· Kevin C. Desouza. 2007. Class discussion. University of Washington, Information School. October 15, 2007. Seattle, Washington.
· Kotter, John P. and Cohen, Dan S. 2002. The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, Massachusetts.
· Michelle Smart worked at Hanjin Shipping for three years as an export booking specialist. She saw the effect and was told on numerous occasions how the personal interactions at all levels of the organization was the main reason people shipped with Hanjin, even though their rates were far higher than most carriers.
· Kelly, Kevin. 2004. Class discussion. Brigham Young University, College of Fine Arts and Communications. November 18, 2004. Before teaching at BYU, Kevin Kelly had been creative director at Ogilvy & Mather for 18 years, he was intimately familiar with the “pod” structure.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Innovation Now! - Fast Company - Evan Luckey
When examining this article, written in 2002, by Gary Hamel, it is important to understand the economy of that time. During the previous decade earnings were “deliriously” driven upward by external market factors. The economy was then on a downturn, a recession. Hamel’s contention is that if your company is to increase revenue and move forward, the only answer is innovation and radical thinking. Hamel makes me laugh when he states that your customers may already be drinking the most beer their going to drink or eating the most hamburgers their going to eat; You can’t expect to grow revenue with the same old customers, same old products through the same old channels. To increase revenue you need “jaw-dropping” new products and services. And to do that, radical thinking must be brought to the table.
Hamel’s idea of radical thinking is not the same as the high risk and ill-conceived notion often equated with traditional CEOs. Hamels’s thinks of radical idea as one that meets any of the three criteria:
Change’s customer expectations
Change’s the basis for competition
Has the power to change industry economics
Of course, meeting any of these criteria is extremely difficult and Hamel further explains organizational belief systems that keep companies hostile to innovation:
Variety is bad.
The company is the business model.
Change starts at the top.
For companies to be innovative Hamel argues that companies need to embrace variety, positively challenge the essence of the company, and capture fresh ideas from the bottom. However, while this may foster innovation, it doesn’t generate ground-breaking ideas. Hamel ends his article defining four qualities of innovative persons. Innovators challenge beliefs that everyone else takes for granted. That means, asking the stupid question no one else has. The second quality is spotting the unnoticed already happening trends in the market. This means, predicting the future. Third, Innovators are able to express customer’s unarticulated need. This means, “learning to live inside the customer’s skin.” And the fourth quality is being able to think of their companies as “portfolios of assets and competencies.”
I really liked Hamel’s article. I agree that most companies are not setup for innovation. I think mainly it’s the culture of the company. You are not going to innovative unless you have the ideals of innovation deeply rooted into the organizational culture. You must beat innovation into the ground. It must permeate the company. Is this why we see a lot of innovative products and services from start-ups and new companies?
In addition, managing the innovative ideas is a challenge. In traditional organizations, for an innovative idea to make it off the ground it has to make its way up the chain of command until someone agrees to invest the money and resources into the idea. How many people does this idea have to go through? Aren’t the truly innovative ideas at first thought of as backwards, crazy and irrational? “Let’s sell coffee for 4.00 bucks!” How do organizations expect these ideas to make it up to the top? How do you get your managers to listen? A lot of companies, Google as an example, allow employees to work on any project of their choice up to 10% of their time. I believe they also have chances to sell these ideas to upper management. And I think we can agree that Google has come up with some pretty innovative products.
Additional Resources – by date (I love LexisNexis!)
It’s interesting to not the increase in search results as the years progressed. Innovation is nothing new, but it’s being talked about A LOT more.
1980s
“3M's problems in the office of the future.” Business Week. October 13, 1980.
Drucker, Peter F. “Principles of innovation: the do's and don'ts; excerpt from book Innovation and Entrepreneurship.” Modern Office Technology. February 1986.
1990s
Russell, Robert D. “Innovation in organizations: toward an integrated model.” Review of Business. September 22, 1990.
Guinet, Jean; Pilat, Dirk. “Promoting innovation -- does it matter?” OECD Observer. June 22, 1999.
Past week
Bajarin, Tim. “How Platforms Drive Innovation.” PC Magazine.com. October 12 2007.
Hamel’s idea of radical thinking is not the same as the high risk and ill-conceived notion often equated with traditional CEOs. Hamels’s thinks of radical idea as one that meets any of the three criteria:
Change’s customer expectations
Change’s the basis for competition
Has the power to change industry economics
Of course, meeting any of these criteria is extremely difficult and Hamel further explains organizational belief systems that keep companies hostile to innovation:
Variety is bad.
The company is the business model.
Change starts at the top.
For companies to be innovative Hamel argues that companies need to embrace variety, positively challenge the essence of the company, and capture fresh ideas from the bottom. However, while this may foster innovation, it doesn’t generate ground-breaking ideas. Hamel ends his article defining four qualities of innovative persons. Innovators challenge beliefs that everyone else takes for granted. That means, asking the stupid question no one else has. The second quality is spotting the unnoticed already happening trends in the market. This means, predicting the future. Third, Innovators are able to express customer’s unarticulated need. This means, “learning to live inside the customer’s skin.” And the fourth quality is being able to think of their companies as “portfolios of assets and competencies.”
I really liked Hamel’s article. I agree that most companies are not setup for innovation. I think mainly it’s the culture of the company. You are not going to innovative unless you have the ideals of innovation deeply rooted into the organizational culture. You must beat innovation into the ground. It must permeate the company. Is this why we see a lot of innovative products and services from start-ups and new companies?
In addition, managing the innovative ideas is a challenge. In traditional organizations, for an innovative idea to make it off the ground it has to make its way up the chain of command until someone agrees to invest the money and resources into the idea. How many people does this idea have to go through? Aren’t the truly innovative ideas at first thought of as backwards, crazy and irrational? “Let’s sell coffee for 4.00 bucks!” How do organizations expect these ideas to make it up to the top? How do you get your managers to listen? A lot of companies, Google as an example, allow employees to work on any project of their choice up to 10% of their time. I believe they also have chances to sell these ideas to upper management. And I think we can agree that Google has come up with some pretty innovative products.
Additional Resources – by date (I love LexisNexis!)
It’s interesting to not the increase in search results as the years progressed. Innovation is nothing new, but it’s being talked about A LOT more.
1980s
“3M's problems in the office of the future.” Business Week. October 13, 1980.
Drucker, Peter F. “Principles of innovation: the do's and don'ts; excerpt from book Innovation and Entrepreneurship.” Modern Office Technology. February 1986.
1990s
Russell, Robert D. “Innovation in organizations: toward an integrated model.” Review of Business. September 22, 1990.
Guinet, Jean; Pilat, Dirk. “Promoting innovation -- does it matter?” OECD Observer. June 22, 1999.
Past week
Bajarin, Tim. “How Platforms Drive Innovation.” PC Magazine.com. October 12 2007.
Sandy Chan - Reflection
In class on Monday 10/15, we had class discussion on 4 video clips which had CEOs talking about their managing experiences. First of all, I enjoyed watching case studies much more than reading them. Hearing the story from a person who experienced it, along with his/her voice tone and facial expressions beat pages of descriptions.
Case 3 was about an engineer who was arrogant and rude to coworkers but at the same time had critical / hard-to-replace expertise to the company. The CEO was facing the problem of what to do with this engineer. In class, we came up with several possible solutions: (1) Send the engineer to training. (2) Isolate the engineer. (3) Videotape the behavior of the engineer and let him see how he’s been treating other coworkers. (4) Outsource parts of his job to create a fear of losing his job for him.
The CEO talked to the engineer, isolated him, and made him attend personal counseling. This approach eventually failed but bought the company 6 months to find someone to replace the engineer. Kevin mentioned that the key to this approach was the CEO talking to the engineer personally. As much as I agree, having a CEO talk to an arrogant engineer could be risky. If the CEO emphasized too much on the un-replaceable value of the engineer to the company, the engineer might get the wrong idea and become conceited. Fortunately, in this case, the engineer seemed to acknowledge his inappropriate behavior and was willing to try to cooperate. It is a shame that the case didn’t end well. The CEO didn’t go too deep into what actually happened in the 6 months. We know it didn’t work out but were there at least some improvements? If the engineer was so hard to work with, he’d probably been changing jobs quite a few times already. He should’ve appreciated this job because he got along with his manager-not all people get along with their managers! It is really sad to see things not working out when both sides are willing to compromise.
I very much agreed with the CEO’s talk at the end of the video. He mentioned how a person’s working attitude can amplify and affect other employees. This is true and applies to teams, organizations, or anywhere that has two people or above. This is why company morale is also important. People have personal/working issues they need to deal with, the last thing they need is a negative person to let them feel low.
Case 4 was about an architectural design company facing some cultural diversity issues in Japan. The CEO suggested three possible solutions: (1) Remove the PM, and replace the women in the team. (2) Try to convince the Japanese that the team-men and women- is the topnotch in its field. (3)Resign the project.
If I were the CEO, I would choose option 1.5 – a combination of (1) and (2). As a woman, I am sorry that I chose (1) but at the same time, coming from an Asian country and knowing the work culture, I know it is hard for business men to trust the ability of women. Luckily, this imbalance situation has reformed, although not completely, in recent years. Since this is the first project with the Japanese customer, I don’t want to push them into to changing their values in a short time. Changes like this need to take time, and could only happen gradually. By choosing 1.5, I would regroup the team, without replacing anyone, so that the men do more of the presentation and talking, making them seemed to be more in charged. At the same time, I would talk to the women employees and let them understand the situation and reason behind the change. Keeping the women employee low but not leaving them out on recognitions when the group has good performance. In fact, I’d try to give more credits to the women so the Japanese can realize the women are as outstanding as the male. After gaining the trust of the Japanese customer on women, I would try to let the women participate in (future) projects as much as they want. And hopefully, the Japanese would feel comfortable working with women as well.
Case 3 was about an engineer who was arrogant and rude to coworkers but at the same time had critical / hard-to-replace expertise to the company. The CEO was facing the problem of what to do with this engineer. In class, we came up with several possible solutions: (1) Send the engineer to training. (2) Isolate the engineer. (3) Videotape the behavior of the engineer and let him see how he’s been treating other coworkers. (4) Outsource parts of his job to create a fear of losing his job for him.
The CEO talked to the engineer, isolated him, and made him attend personal counseling. This approach eventually failed but bought the company 6 months to find someone to replace the engineer. Kevin mentioned that the key to this approach was the CEO talking to the engineer personally. As much as I agree, having a CEO talk to an arrogant engineer could be risky. If the CEO emphasized too much on the un-replaceable value of the engineer to the company, the engineer might get the wrong idea and become conceited. Fortunately, in this case, the engineer seemed to acknowledge his inappropriate behavior and was willing to try to cooperate. It is a shame that the case didn’t end well. The CEO didn’t go too deep into what actually happened in the 6 months. We know it didn’t work out but were there at least some improvements? If the engineer was so hard to work with, he’d probably been changing jobs quite a few times already. He should’ve appreciated this job because he got along with his manager-not all people get along with their managers! It is really sad to see things not working out when both sides are willing to compromise.
I very much agreed with the CEO’s talk at the end of the video. He mentioned how a person’s working attitude can amplify and affect other employees. This is true and applies to teams, organizations, or anywhere that has two people or above. This is why company morale is also important. People have personal/working issues they need to deal with, the last thing they need is a negative person to let them feel low.
Case 4 was about an architectural design company facing some cultural diversity issues in Japan. The CEO suggested three possible solutions: (1) Remove the PM, and replace the women in the team. (2) Try to convince the Japanese that the team-men and women- is the topnotch in its field. (3)Resign the project.
If I were the CEO, I would choose option 1.5 – a combination of (1) and (2). As a woman, I am sorry that I chose (1) but at the same time, coming from an Asian country and knowing the work culture, I know it is hard for business men to trust the ability of women. Luckily, this imbalance situation has reformed, although not completely, in recent years. Since this is the first project with the Japanese customer, I don’t want to push them into to changing their values in a short time. Changes like this need to take time, and could only happen gradually. By choosing 1.5, I would regroup the team, without replacing anyone, so that the men do more of the presentation and talking, making them seemed to be more in charged. At the same time, I would talk to the women employees and let them understand the situation and reason behind the change. Keeping the women employee low but not leaving them out on recognitions when the group has good performance. In fact, I’d try to give more credits to the women so the Japanese can realize the women are as outstanding as the male. After gaining the trust of the Japanese customer on women, I would try to let the women participate in (future) projects as much as they want. And hopefully, the Japanese would feel comfortable working with women as well.
Levi’s Changes Everything - Fast Company - Fred Bigjim
The Fast Company article “Levi’s Changes Everything” is based on a 1996 interview with a Levi’s Strauss & Co. executive named Thomas M. Kasten. Mr. Kasten recalls how he accepted the challenge in 1993 to be the lead change agent for an internal organization change management initiated at Levi’s. At the time the company had strong market shares and a great profit margin, however the company was concerned with growing complaints regarding the quality of the company’s customer service. Specifically issues that were supply chain related such as slow delivery of products to its retail vendors. At the time Levi’s contracted with approximately 600 contractors in 50 countries and sold approximately 65,000 different combinations of product variables (such as sizes, colors, brands, and fabrics) to 8,000 different customers. Mr. Kasten assessed this complex situation and determined that in order to address it properly it would require a different approach to the company’s traditional top-to-bottom management style.
Mr. Kasten noted that at age 53, he recognized the need to change his own personal management style (one from being a very controlling manager to that of a team collaborator) in order to successfully achieve the type of large scale change he wanted to implement. One problem that Levi’s faced at the time when it came to implementing top-down change was that people would become excited at the start of change initiatives, but as time went on the change progress slowly diminished. One problem noted for this is the company’s lack of properly preparing its people for such change. Although not mentioned directly, I suspect this problem to be similar to what has been discussed in class as far as assigning mangers that already have their own responsibilities to also be expected to participate in side team projects. In class the explanation for why such a top-down practice tends to fail over time is because the managers become overwhelmed with their day to day duties (such as “putting out their own fires”) that they slowly devote less and less time to their assigned side projects. In the Facilitating Organizational Change book this concept is addressed as “permanent white water” where unforeseen disruptive problems tend to call for the immediate attention of managers.
Kasten’s approach to dealing with this problem is very similar to the boat building metaphor described in the introduction of Facilitating Organizational Change. Instead of having department managers be a part of a committee to help create change while at the same time also bearing the burden of running their own departments which had been the traditional approach (and one possible reason why the former change initiates tended to sink under all the regulations and rules of the top-down style) he created a new change division of 200 leaders that encompassed both upper and middle management. He did not just force people to be a part of the change team; rather he had them apply for their positions. This allowed for the creation of a new department of people that were there because they actually wanted to participate in the change and for the team as a whole to have one united goal – focus by working together on the job of innovating change. As in the metaphor, Kasten allowed this new team to think outside of the box (and in the process he changed his own management style by not trying to control everything) in order to come up with plans for change that would actually “float.” This new change management division became their own management entity within the company and approached change from more of a middle-to-top stance. They had their own floor at company headquarters where they were free to explore new ideas for change innovation without the restrictions that tended to stigmatize previous teams that attempted change under the traditional top-down style (basically they were a self managing team within the organization). Some of the methods this new team implemented as part of their change initiative are very similar to those discussed in the Heart Of Change book. For example, the team video tapped some angry customers to help communicate an emotional urgency to others (pg. 18). They nuked their floor of traditional lavish hierarchy offices in order to show others they walked the talk as far everyone being a true part of the team (pg. 92). They pulled in people to be a part of the team and guided them along with the new vision (pg. 47). And they even displayed magazine covers of top-down companies that had recently failed as a sort of emotional motivator to strive for innovative thinking (pg. 33).
According the article this new approach for Levi’s was successes because this change management team achieved their target goal of re-inventing their supply chain in order to better serve their customers. In the process, they also demonstrated the value of cross collaboration when it comes to strategic planning. From a numbers standpoint, according to the article, in 1996 when the article was written, Levi’s had global sales of nearly $7 billion dollars, profits of $700 million, and a market share of around $10 billion.
That Was Then, This is Now.
How effective exactly has this change at Levi’s been since this particular article? According to Forbes in a ranking of private American companies Levi’s was ranked #53 in 2005 with $4.13 billion in revenue sales and $156 million in net profits and that the company has more debt (wwwtest.forbes.com/lists/2006/21/biz_o6privates_Levi-Strauss-Co_H45y.html). From a numbers perspective it would appear that things were financially better for the company back in 1996. However, I do not know how such figures factor into the article because even though the article painted this great uplifting vision of how the changes at Levi’s were innovative and successful within the organization, it never really went into the details of what was being changed. In fact the article only really referenced the supply chain problems in relation to customer satisfaction as being the driving catalyst for their big hoopla of change. I found it interesting that at the same time that this hoopla was being promoted that Levi’s had been also dealing with a product recall problem. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Levi’s had to recall approximately 40,000 children garments due to unsafe levels of bleach (www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml94/94061.html). Also during this change time period according to the a PBS film Levi’s had just been exposed by the Washington Post about the company’s exploitation of sweatshop practices concerning the fact that Levi’s jeans were being made in Chinese prison camps (www.pbs.org/independentlens/chinablue/levis.html). How either of these public image problems at the time factored into the change initiatives I am not sure because again the article never goes beyond the surface level of change.
The Good. Concerning the issue that was in fact address in the article of how Levi’s wanted to create some forms of change that would be of value to the customers, I did find an interesting company press release that relates to a new customer service issue. Specifically how Levi’s is now making an effort to satisfy some of today’s more environmentally scrupulous consumers by offering new lines of organic jeans (www.cswire.com/PressReleasePrint.php?id=5895). This is clearly an example of a company understanding that people are becoming more environmentally conscious and I believe it is a smart and innovative approach by Levi’s to cater to this emerging new trend in consumerism.
The Bad. The article never explains how exactly it was dealing with improving its supply chain, however I would guess that what was not being addressed outright was that it was improving its supply chain by outsourcing. In 1996, there were still plants in America that made Levi’s products. According to an article published in 2003 in the San Francisco Chronicle Levi’s now no longer makes any products in American plants (www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0926-03.html). Was this whole supply change initiative in the article just part of a larger ten year plan to eventually outsource all manufacturing outside of the country? From a cut costs in order to improve service stand point it would be understandable, but from a loss of jobs perspective and company loyalty to its workers it may not be so understandable.
The Ugly. Last year the British based watch dog organization for ethical trade, ETI, suspended Levi’s from its international membership for refusing to adapt to the ETI’s “living wage” code (www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2006/12/levistrauss-press/index.shtml). If one were to look more closely at how this bad publicity came about would one be able to trace some of the factors leading up to it by connecting some of the change management dots that were implemented back in 1996? Again, I do not think it is possible to know if more allegations of sweat shop practices against the company are turning up now as a result of Levi’s outsourcing its supply chain based on information provided in the article. Will this lead to more change brought on by law suits forcing the company to once again re-invent its supply chain operations to places that are more human rights conscious? If so, should we expect a new fluff article in Fast Company about how Levi’s is now once making new strides in management change?
Reference List:
Eoyang, Glenda H., & Olson, Edwin E. (2001). Facilitating Organizational Change: Lessons from Complexity Science. San Francisco, CA : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cohen, Dan S., & Kotter, John P. (2002). The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Sheff, David. (June 1996). Levi’s Changes Everything: An inside account of the most dramatic change program in American business. Fast Company Magazine. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/03/levi.html.
Levi Strauss & Company Recalls Toddlers Coveralls (April 22, 1994). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml94/94061.html.
Largest Private Companies: # 53 Levi Strauss & Co (November 9, 2006). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://wwwtest.forbes.com/lists/2006/21/biz_06privates_Levi-Strauss-Co_H45Y.html.
China Blue: The blue jeans business (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chinablue/levis.html.
Levi’s Brand Lanches 100% Organic Cotton Jeans (May 5, 2006). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.csrwire.com/PressReleasePrint.php?id=5895.
Suspension of Levi Straus & Co. from ETI membership (December 20, 2006). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2006/12/levistrauss-press/index.shtml.
Strasburg, Jenny. (September 26, 2003). Levi’s to Close Last U.S. Plants: Much of the work once done in this country has moved instead to cheaper contract factories in Asia and Latin America. The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0926-03.htm).
Mr. Kasten noted that at age 53, he recognized the need to change his own personal management style (one from being a very controlling manager to that of a team collaborator) in order to successfully achieve the type of large scale change he wanted to implement. One problem that Levi’s faced at the time when it came to implementing top-down change was that people would become excited at the start of change initiatives, but as time went on the change progress slowly diminished. One problem noted for this is the company’s lack of properly preparing its people for such change. Although not mentioned directly, I suspect this problem to be similar to what has been discussed in class as far as assigning mangers that already have their own responsibilities to also be expected to participate in side team projects. In class the explanation for why such a top-down practice tends to fail over time is because the managers become overwhelmed with their day to day duties (such as “putting out their own fires”) that they slowly devote less and less time to their assigned side projects. In the Facilitating Organizational Change book this concept is addressed as “permanent white water” where unforeseen disruptive problems tend to call for the immediate attention of managers.
Kasten’s approach to dealing with this problem is very similar to the boat building metaphor described in the introduction of Facilitating Organizational Change. Instead of having department managers be a part of a committee to help create change while at the same time also bearing the burden of running their own departments which had been the traditional approach (and one possible reason why the former change initiates tended to sink under all the regulations and rules of the top-down style) he created a new change division of 200 leaders that encompassed both upper and middle management. He did not just force people to be a part of the change team; rather he had them apply for their positions. This allowed for the creation of a new department of people that were there because they actually wanted to participate in the change and for the team as a whole to have one united goal – focus by working together on the job of innovating change. As in the metaphor, Kasten allowed this new team to think outside of the box (and in the process he changed his own management style by not trying to control everything) in order to come up with plans for change that would actually “float.” This new change management division became their own management entity within the company and approached change from more of a middle-to-top stance. They had their own floor at company headquarters where they were free to explore new ideas for change innovation without the restrictions that tended to stigmatize previous teams that attempted change under the traditional top-down style (basically they were a self managing team within the organization). Some of the methods this new team implemented as part of their change initiative are very similar to those discussed in the Heart Of Change book. For example, the team video tapped some angry customers to help communicate an emotional urgency to others (pg. 18). They nuked their floor of traditional lavish hierarchy offices in order to show others they walked the talk as far everyone being a true part of the team (pg. 92). They pulled in people to be a part of the team and guided them along with the new vision (pg. 47). And they even displayed magazine covers of top-down companies that had recently failed as a sort of emotional motivator to strive for innovative thinking (pg. 33).
According the article this new approach for Levi’s was successes because this change management team achieved their target goal of re-inventing their supply chain in order to better serve their customers. In the process, they also demonstrated the value of cross collaboration when it comes to strategic planning. From a numbers standpoint, according to the article, in 1996 when the article was written, Levi’s had global sales of nearly $7 billion dollars, profits of $700 million, and a market share of around $10 billion.
That Was Then, This is Now.
How effective exactly has this change at Levi’s been since this particular article? According to Forbes in a ranking of private American companies Levi’s was ranked #53 in 2005 with $4.13 billion in revenue sales and $156 million in net profits and that the company has more debt (wwwtest.forbes.com/lists/2006/21/biz_o6privates_Levi-Strauss-Co_H45y.html). From a numbers perspective it would appear that things were financially better for the company back in 1996. However, I do not know how such figures factor into the article because even though the article painted this great uplifting vision of how the changes at Levi’s were innovative and successful within the organization, it never really went into the details of what was being changed. In fact the article only really referenced the supply chain problems in relation to customer satisfaction as being the driving catalyst for their big hoopla of change. I found it interesting that at the same time that this hoopla was being promoted that Levi’s had been also dealing with a product recall problem. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Levi’s had to recall approximately 40,000 children garments due to unsafe levels of bleach (www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml94/94061.html). Also during this change time period according to the a PBS film Levi’s had just been exposed by the Washington Post about the company’s exploitation of sweatshop practices concerning the fact that Levi’s jeans were being made in Chinese prison camps (www.pbs.org/independentlens/chinablue/levis.html). How either of these public image problems at the time factored into the change initiatives I am not sure because again the article never goes beyond the surface level of change.
The Good. Concerning the issue that was in fact address in the article of how Levi’s wanted to create some forms of change that would be of value to the customers, I did find an interesting company press release that relates to a new customer service issue. Specifically how Levi’s is now making an effort to satisfy some of today’s more environmentally scrupulous consumers by offering new lines of organic jeans (www.cswire.com/PressReleasePrint.php?id=5895). This is clearly an example of a company understanding that people are becoming more environmentally conscious and I believe it is a smart and innovative approach by Levi’s to cater to this emerging new trend in consumerism.
The Bad. The article never explains how exactly it was dealing with improving its supply chain, however I would guess that what was not being addressed outright was that it was improving its supply chain by outsourcing. In 1996, there were still plants in America that made Levi’s products. According to an article published in 2003 in the San Francisco Chronicle Levi’s now no longer makes any products in American plants (www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0926-03.html). Was this whole supply change initiative in the article just part of a larger ten year plan to eventually outsource all manufacturing outside of the country? From a cut costs in order to improve service stand point it would be understandable, but from a loss of jobs perspective and company loyalty to its workers it may not be so understandable.
The Ugly. Last year the British based watch dog organization for ethical trade, ETI, suspended Levi’s from its international membership for refusing to adapt to the ETI’s “living wage” code (www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2006/12/levistrauss-press/index.shtml). If one were to look more closely at how this bad publicity came about would one be able to trace some of the factors leading up to it by connecting some of the change management dots that were implemented back in 1996? Again, I do not think it is possible to know if more allegations of sweat shop practices against the company are turning up now as a result of Levi’s outsourcing its supply chain based on information provided in the article. Will this lead to more change brought on by law suits forcing the company to once again re-invent its supply chain operations to places that are more human rights conscious? If so, should we expect a new fluff article in Fast Company about how Levi’s is now once making new strides in management change?
Reference List:
Eoyang, Glenda H., & Olson, Edwin E. (2001). Facilitating Organizational Change: Lessons from Complexity Science. San Francisco, CA : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cohen, Dan S., & Kotter, John P. (2002). The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Sheff, David. (June 1996). Levi’s Changes Everything: An inside account of the most dramatic change program in American business. Fast Company Magazine. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/03/levi.html.
Levi Strauss & Company Recalls Toddlers Coveralls (April 22, 1994). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml94/94061.html.
Largest Private Companies: # 53 Levi Strauss & Co (November 9, 2006). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://wwwtest.forbes.com/lists/2006/21/biz_06privates_Levi-Strauss-Co_H45Y.html.
China Blue: The blue jeans business (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/chinablue/levis.html.
Levi’s Brand Lanches 100% Organic Cotton Jeans (May 5, 2006). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.csrwire.com/PressReleasePrint.php?id=5895.
Suspension of Levi Straus & Co. from ETI membership (December 20, 2006). Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2006/12/levistrauss-press/index.shtml.
Strasburg, Jenny. (September 26, 2003). Levi’s to Close Last U.S. Plants: Much of the work once done in this country has moved instead to cheaper contract factories in Asia and Latin America. The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0926-03.htm).
The New Face of Global Competition - Fast Company - Zhengyu Gui
Article Summary (see http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/67/newface_Printer_Friendly.html for the article)
The New Face of Global Competition is an article written by Keith Hammonds, who traveled to India years ago and witnessed and sensed the growing potential of Wipro, an Indian information technology services company. He called what he saw and experienced an “explosion”.
Hammonds discusses key factors why companies like Wipro are thriving, even when they find themselves competing with big boys like IBM, Accenture, or Deloitte. In a global downturn, new business will come, and everyone is looking to slash costs. Client organizations that looking for technology solutions are willing to do offshore outsourcing because it will dramatically cut down their expenses. This has been true for years as companies like Wipro have offered to write software, integrate back-office solutions, debug applications, and design semiconductors for low prices which are way cheaper than its American or European competitors. But is cost the only competitive advantage for Wipro?
The obvious point is that clients will only move their works and have them done where it is most cost-effective as today’s offshore outsourcing has become a commodity. And this is the true reason why Wipro is thriving. Maintaining the cost advantage is important for Wipro but as being a company who is trying to do the catch up in the high-tech consulting industry, top-quality information services are what really keep it prospering. In a pure technology sense, Wipro has a group of world’s most talented developers and technologists; they are excellent, but they are also very cheap, and this is how the company has proved itself cost-effective to its clients. Think about this: who would refuse to receive world-class information consultations while only paying a comparatively low price?
Wipro is visioning for the future so it is no longer satisfied on just providing cheap and good IT services to its clients. For Wipro, being regarded as a high-valued and non-replicable partner by its clients is its new goal and it will eventually turn the organization into a global branded enterprise. In order to achieve this goal, changes have been made by Wipro and its strategy is to build local presence by opening development centers nearby client organizations, hiring local talents, and acquiring smaller companies.
Discussion
Are they ready for the challenge?
The “they” here stands for IBM, Accenture, Deloitte, or any other big boys in the industry. We all remember the short-lived panic over the overseas migration of manufacturing jobs in the 1980s; it was short-lived because it did not affect what pushed America’s economy forward: innovation and knowledge. From then to now, America is still the world’s No.1 place of producing talents of innovation and high-value information services. However, in today’s knowledge economy, more and more companies like Wipro have become capable of providing solutions in the same good, or even better quality, but for a cheaper price to its clients. They are charging upstream into the consulting field and other high-value services while its bigger American competitors are rushing downstream. This may not seem by the big boys as a truly threatening challenge right now, but they will eventually pay if they do not take it seriously.
My opinion is that big guys will always play, since they are resourced. However the way they choose to approach will definitely be a matter of difference. In nature, knowledge economy is so different from manufacturing economy, as it lays on brain work rather than intensive labor work. As offshore outsourcing has become a trend or even commodity, can American companies keep their brain of talent outstanding? This would be an interesting thing to see as the time goes on.
What about them? Are they ready for the challenge?
This time the “they” stands for Wipro and similar organizations. Wipro has a vision, it wants to provide high-value consulting services to clients, and build long term partnership with those clients, in order to ensure growth and profitability, and gradually create itself a global brand. As the efforts, Wipro has decided to expand itself by opening development centers nearby its American clients, hiring local talents, and outsourcing some of its outsourced works to other third world countries, such as Vietnam and Philippines, or even back to America. “Instant industry presence”, Wipro’s goal is obvious that it wants to quickly and effectively tap into the high profitable IT consulting business.
But, the challenges lie in front for Wipro are tough. “…so we think that in anything having to do with technology, we should be world-class.” From Hammonds’ interview scripts with some of the Wipro employees in Bangalore, I could see the confidence and passion shown; however, could this confidence turn into overconfidence, or even complacency? It is always true that “if what you do can be done by anyone, there will always be someone willing to do it for less.” To tackle this critical fact, Wipro will need to offer services that are high-valued and non-replicable. And as the common thought in Wipro is to consistently offer the best technology solutions in the world, it will need to keep up with this promise, which is not an easy job to do. Also, it is obvious that Wipro will not be able to soon stand shoulder to shoulder with giants like Accenture or IBM. As mentioned above, these organizations have their names long been renowned in the industry, they are resourced, and they are always willing to compete.
In my opinion, the opportunity for Wipro is great. It has the vision and passion, and most importantly it has the talents. However, along the way it will face many challenges; growing is good, but growing too fast without caution and careful management could rather be dangerous. Creating global presence means that the company must integrate its services and have an outstanding global-delivery system; and this could distinguish it from the true global organization. Perhaps Wipro could take a look at what other big boys had done in the past. Still, the management of Wipro must be willing and be able to see both sides of the change; they must understand that building a global brand is not an easy and quick task.
Are they thinking about just the cost?
By the time the article was written, Hammonds argued it was India’s poverty made the country so appealing to organizations such as IBM, Oracle as a source of low-cost labor. And a higher standard of living will threaten India’s competitive advantage. Upon this statement, I might argue that why the author believed a higher standard of living will threaten India’s competitive advantage? As one of the fastest growing economics in the world, India is improving a lot of its domestic problems, such as poverty and lack of education. More education means more talents and employments, then why foreign organizations refuse to take this advantage? I understand that the author’s point was on cost, that more education also means more incomes. However, as aforementioned, organizations will only remove the works from where they were originated and get them done somewhere else that is most cost effective. Cost may be the foremost determinant for companies’ outsourcing decisions; however, as more and more critical jobs are being outsourced, quality of work will come in front and I believe companies will always be willing to pay a higher price for those works.
But, aiming for cost-effective also means there are always options. Today we can see Wipro from India thriving, in the near future we may also see company X from Vietnam or Ukraine catching people’s eyes. In the face of today’s global competition, opportunities could rise anywhere.
Sidebar
Wipro Tech is an information technology services company established in India in 1980. It is the global IT services arm of Wipro Limited. It is headquartered in Bangalore and is the third largest IT services company in India. It has more than 70,000 employees as of September 2007, including its business process outsourcing (BPO) arm which it acquired in 2002. Wipro has a revenue of more than US $3billion.
Wipro has over 300 customers across US, Europe, and Japan, including 50 of the Fortune 500 companies. Some of its notable customers are Boeing, BP, Cisco, Ericsson, Microsoft, Sony, and Toshiba. It is listed on the NYSE and is part of the TMT (technology media telecom) index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wipro
The Hottest Trend in Outsourcing Management: Dedicated Centers. http://www.cio.com/article/29685/The_Hottest_Trend_in_Outsourcing_Management_Dedicated_Centers
What’s Next for India: Beyond the Back Office. http://www.bcg.com/publications/files/Beyond_Back_Office_Feb2007.pdf
Business Lessons from Wipro’s Chief. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2003/tc2003108_6179_tc121.htm?chan=search
Outsourcing: Beyond Bangalore. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2006/tc20061207_164472.htm?chan=search%20
The New Face of Global Competition is an article written by Keith Hammonds, who traveled to India years ago and witnessed and sensed the growing potential of Wipro, an Indian information technology services company. He called what he saw and experienced an “explosion”.
Hammonds discusses key factors why companies like Wipro are thriving, even when they find themselves competing with big boys like IBM, Accenture, or Deloitte. In a global downturn, new business will come, and everyone is looking to slash costs. Client organizations that looking for technology solutions are willing to do offshore outsourcing because it will dramatically cut down their expenses. This has been true for years as companies like Wipro have offered to write software, integrate back-office solutions, debug applications, and design semiconductors for low prices which are way cheaper than its American or European competitors. But is cost the only competitive advantage for Wipro?
The obvious point is that clients will only move their works and have them done where it is most cost-effective as today’s offshore outsourcing has become a commodity. And this is the true reason why Wipro is thriving. Maintaining the cost advantage is important for Wipro but as being a company who is trying to do the catch up in the high-tech consulting industry, top-quality information services are what really keep it prospering. In a pure technology sense, Wipro has a group of world’s most talented developers and technologists; they are excellent, but they are also very cheap, and this is how the company has proved itself cost-effective to its clients. Think about this: who would refuse to receive world-class information consultations while only paying a comparatively low price?
Wipro is visioning for the future so it is no longer satisfied on just providing cheap and good IT services to its clients. For Wipro, being regarded as a high-valued and non-replicable partner by its clients is its new goal and it will eventually turn the organization into a global branded enterprise. In order to achieve this goal, changes have been made by Wipro and its strategy is to build local presence by opening development centers nearby client organizations, hiring local talents, and acquiring smaller companies.
Discussion
Are they ready for the challenge?
The “they” here stands for IBM, Accenture, Deloitte, or any other big boys in the industry. We all remember the short-lived panic over the overseas migration of manufacturing jobs in the 1980s; it was short-lived because it did not affect what pushed America’s economy forward: innovation and knowledge. From then to now, America is still the world’s No.1 place of producing talents of innovation and high-value information services. However, in today’s knowledge economy, more and more companies like Wipro have become capable of providing solutions in the same good, or even better quality, but for a cheaper price to its clients. They are charging upstream into the consulting field and other high-value services while its bigger American competitors are rushing downstream. This may not seem by the big boys as a truly threatening challenge right now, but they will eventually pay if they do not take it seriously.
My opinion is that big guys will always play, since they are resourced. However the way they choose to approach will definitely be a matter of difference. In nature, knowledge economy is so different from manufacturing economy, as it lays on brain work rather than intensive labor work. As offshore outsourcing has become a trend or even commodity, can American companies keep their brain of talent outstanding? This would be an interesting thing to see as the time goes on.
What about them? Are they ready for the challenge?
This time the “they” stands for Wipro and similar organizations. Wipro has a vision, it wants to provide high-value consulting services to clients, and build long term partnership with those clients, in order to ensure growth and profitability, and gradually create itself a global brand. As the efforts, Wipro has decided to expand itself by opening development centers nearby its American clients, hiring local talents, and outsourcing some of its outsourced works to other third world countries, such as Vietnam and Philippines, or even back to America. “Instant industry presence”, Wipro’s goal is obvious that it wants to quickly and effectively tap into the high profitable IT consulting business.
But, the challenges lie in front for Wipro are tough. “…so we think that in anything having to do with technology, we should be world-class.” From Hammonds’ interview scripts with some of the Wipro employees in Bangalore, I could see the confidence and passion shown; however, could this confidence turn into overconfidence, or even complacency? It is always true that “if what you do can be done by anyone, there will always be someone willing to do it for less.” To tackle this critical fact, Wipro will need to offer services that are high-valued and non-replicable. And as the common thought in Wipro is to consistently offer the best technology solutions in the world, it will need to keep up with this promise, which is not an easy job to do. Also, it is obvious that Wipro will not be able to soon stand shoulder to shoulder with giants like Accenture or IBM. As mentioned above, these organizations have their names long been renowned in the industry, they are resourced, and they are always willing to compete.
In my opinion, the opportunity for Wipro is great. It has the vision and passion, and most importantly it has the talents. However, along the way it will face many challenges; growing is good, but growing too fast without caution and careful management could rather be dangerous. Creating global presence means that the company must integrate its services and have an outstanding global-delivery system; and this could distinguish it from the true global organization. Perhaps Wipro could take a look at what other big boys had done in the past. Still, the management of Wipro must be willing and be able to see both sides of the change; they must understand that building a global brand is not an easy and quick task.
Are they thinking about just the cost?
By the time the article was written, Hammonds argued it was India’s poverty made the country so appealing to organizations such as IBM, Oracle as a source of low-cost labor. And a higher standard of living will threaten India’s competitive advantage. Upon this statement, I might argue that why the author believed a higher standard of living will threaten India’s competitive advantage? As one of the fastest growing economics in the world, India is improving a lot of its domestic problems, such as poverty and lack of education. More education means more talents and employments, then why foreign organizations refuse to take this advantage? I understand that the author’s point was on cost, that more education also means more incomes. However, as aforementioned, organizations will only remove the works from where they were originated and get them done somewhere else that is most cost effective. Cost may be the foremost determinant for companies’ outsourcing decisions; however, as more and more critical jobs are being outsourced, quality of work will come in front and I believe companies will always be willing to pay a higher price for those works.
But, aiming for cost-effective also means there are always options. Today we can see Wipro from India thriving, in the near future we may also see company X from Vietnam or Ukraine catching people’s eyes. In the face of today’s global competition, opportunities could rise anywhere.
Sidebar
Wipro Tech is an information technology services company established in India in 1980. It is the global IT services arm of Wipro Limited. It is headquartered in Bangalore and is the third largest IT services company in India. It has more than 70,000 employees as of September 2007, including its business process outsourcing (BPO) arm which it acquired in 2002. Wipro has a revenue of more than US $3billion.
Wipro has over 300 customers across US, Europe, and Japan, including 50 of the Fortune 500 companies. Some of its notable customers are Boeing, BP, Cisco, Ericsson, Microsoft, Sony, and Toshiba. It is listed on the NYSE and is part of the TMT (technology media telecom) index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wipro
The Hottest Trend in Outsourcing Management: Dedicated Centers. http://www.cio.com/article/29685/The_Hottest_Trend_in_Outsourcing_Management_Dedicated_Centers
What’s Next for India: Beyond the Back Office. http://www.bcg.com/publications/files/Beyond_Back_Office_Feb2007.pdf
Business Lessons from Wipro’s Chief. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2003/tc2003108_6179_tc121.htm?chan=search
Outsourcing: Beyond Bangalore. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2006/tc20061207_164472.htm?chan=search%20
The New Face of Global Competition - Fast Company - Zhengyu Gui
Article Summary (see http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/67/newface_Printer_Friendly.html for the article)
The New Face of Global Competition is an article written by Keith Hammonds, who traveled to India years ago and witnessed and sensed the growing potential of Wipro, an Indian information technology services company. He called what he saw and experienced an “explosion”.
Hammonds discusses key factors why companies like Wipro are thriving, even when they find themselves competing with big boys like IBM, Accenture, or Deloitte. In a global downturn, new business will come, and everyone is looking to slash costs. Client organizations that looking for technology solutions are willing to do offshore outsourcing because it will dramatically cut down their expenses. This has been true for years as companies like Wipro have offered to write software, integrate back-office solutions, debug applications, and design semiconductors for low prices which are way cheaper than its American or European competitors. But is cost the only competitive advantage for Wipro?
The obvious point is that clients will only move their works and have them done where it is most cost-effective as today’s offshore outsourcing has become a commodity. And this is the true reason why Wipro is thriving. Maintaining the cost advantage is important for Wipro but as being a company who is trying to do the catch up in the high-tech consulting industry, top-quality information services are what really keep it prospering. In a pure technology sense, Wipro has a group of world’s most talented developers and technologists; they are excellent, but they are also very cheap, and this is how the company has proved itself cost-effective to its clients. Think about this: who would refuse to receive world-class information consultations while only paying a comparatively low price?
Wipro is visioning for the future so it is no longer satisfied on just providing cheap and good IT services to its clients. For Wipro, being regarded as a high-valued and non-replicable partner by its clients is its new goal and it will eventually turn the organization into a global branded enterprise. In order to achieve this goal, changes have been made by Wipro and its strategy is to build local presence by opening development centers nearby client organizations, hiring local talents, and acquiring smaller companies.
Discussion
Are they ready for the challenge?
The “they” here stands for IBM, Accenture, Deloitte, or any other big boys in the industry. We all remember the short-lived panic over the overseas migration of manufacturing jobs in the 1980s; it was short-lived because it did not affect what pushed America’s economy forward: innovation and knowledge. From then to now, America is still the world’s No.1 place of producing talents of innovation and high-value information services. However, in today’s knowledge economy, more and more companies like Wipro have become capable of providing solutions in the same good, or even better quality, but for a cheaper price to its clients. They are charging upstream into the consulting field and other high-value services while its bigger American competitors are rushing downstream. This may not seem by the big boys as a truly threatening challenge right now, but they will eventually pay if they do not take it seriously.
My opinion is that big guys will always play, since they are resourced. However the way they choose to approach will definitely be a matter of difference. In nature, knowledge economy is so different from manufacturing economy, as it lays on brain work rather than intensive labor work. As offshore outsourcing has become a trend or even commodity, can American companies keep their brain of talent outstanding? This would be an interesting thing to see as the time goes on.
What about them? Are they ready for the challenge?
This time the “they” stands for Wipro and similar organizations. Wipro has a vision, it wants to provide high-value consulting services to clients, and build long term partnership with those clients, in order to ensure growth and profitability, and gradually create itself a global brand. As the efforts, Wipro has decided to expand itself by opening development centers nearby its American clients, hiring local talents, and outsourcing some of its outsourced works to other third world countries, such as Vietnam and Philippines, or even back to America. “Instant industry presence”, Wipro’s goal is obvious that it wants to quickly and effectively tap into the high profitable IT consulting business.
But, the challenges lie in front for Wipro are tough. “…so we think that in anything having to do with technology, we should be world-class.” From Hammonds’ interview scripts with some of the Wipro employees in Bangalore, I could see the confidence and passion shown; however, could this confidence turn into overconfidence, or even complacency? It is always true that “if what you do can be done by anyone, there will always be someone willing to do it for less.” To tackle this critical fact, Wipro will need to offer services that are high-valued and non-replicable. And as the common thought in Wipro is to consistently offer the best technology solutions in the world, it will need to keep up with this promise, which is not an easy job to do. Also, it is obvious that Wipro will not be able to soon stand shoulder to shoulder with giants like Accenture or IBM. As mentioned above, these organizations have their names long been renowned in the industry, they are resourced, and they are always willing to compete.
In my opinion, the opportunity for Wipro is great. It has the vision and passion, and most importantly it has the talents. However, along the way it will face many challenges; growing is good, but growing too fast without caution and careful management could rather be dangerous. Creating global presence means that the company must integrate its services and have an outstanding global-delivery system; and this could distinguish it from the true global organization. Perhaps Wipro could take a look at what other big boys had done in the past. Still, the management of Wipro must be willing and be able to see both sides of the change; they must understand that building a global brand is not an easy and quick task.
Are they thinking about just the cost?
By the time the article was written, Hammonds argued it was India’s poverty made the country so appealing to organizations such as IBM, Oracle as a source of low-cost labor. And a higher standard of living will threaten India’s competitive advantage. Upon this statement, I might argue that why the author believed a higher standard of living will threaten India’s competitive advantage? As one of the fastest growing economics in the world, India is improving a lot of its domestic problems, such as poverty and lack of education. More education means more talents and employments, then why foreign organizations refuse to take this advantage? I understand that the author’s point was on cost, that more education also means more incomes. However, as aforementioned, organizations will only remove the works from where they were originated and get them done somewhere else that is most cost effective. Cost may be the foremost determinant for companies’ outsourcing decisions; however, as more and more critical jobs are being outsourced, quality of work will come in front and I believe companies will always be willing to pay a higher price for those works.
But, aiming for cost-effective also means there are always options. Today we can see Wipro from India thriving, in the near future we may also see company X from Vietnam or Ukraine catching people’s eyes. In the face of today’s global competition, opportunities could rise anywhere.
Sidebar
Wipro Tech is an information technology services company established in India in 1980. It is the global IT services arm of Wipro Limited. It is headquartered in Bangalore and is the third largest IT services company in India. It has more than 70,000 employees as of September 2007, including its business process outsourcing (BPO) arm which it acquired in 2002. Wipro has a revenue of more than US $3billion.
Wipro has over 300 customers across US, Europe, and Japan, including 50 of the Fortune 500 companies. Some of its notable customers are Boeing, BP, Cisco, Ericsson, Microsoft, Sony, and Toshiba. It is listed on the NYSE and is part of the TMT (technology media telecom) index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wipro
References/Recommended readings:
Indian Outsourcer Wipro’s Strategy: Innovation Push, Global Hiring, Acquisitions. http://www.cio.com/article/140100
The Hottest Trend in Outsourcing Management: Dedicated Centers. http://www.cio.com/article/29685/The_Hottest_Trend_in_Outsourcing_Management_Dedicated_Centers
What’s Next for India: Beyond the Back Office. http://www.bcg.com/publications/files/Beyond_Back_Office_Feb2007.pdf
Business Lessons from Wipro’s Chief. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2003/tc2003108_6179_tc121.htm?chan=search
Outsourcing: Beyond Bangalore. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2006/tc20061207_164472.htm?chan=search
The New Face of Global Competition is an article written by Keith Hammonds, who traveled to India years ago and witnessed and sensed the growing potential of Wipro, an Indian information technology services company. He called what he saw and experienced an “explosion”.
Hammonds discusses key factors why companies like Wipro are thriving, even when they find themselves competing with big boys like IBM, Accenture, or Deloitte. In a global downturn, new business will come, and everyone is looking to slash costs. Client organizations that looking for technology solutions are willing to do offshore outsourcing because it will dramatically cut down their expenses. This has been true for years as companies like Wipro have offered to write software, integrate back-office solutions, debug applications, and design semiconductors for low prices which are way cheaper than its American or European competitors. But is cost the only competitive advantage for Wipro?
The obvious point is that clients will only move their works and have them done where it is most cost-effective as today’s offshore outsourcing has become a commodity. And this is the true reason why Wipro is thriving. Maintaining the cost advantage is important for Wipro but as being a company who is trying to do the catch up in the high-tech consulting industry, top-quality information services are what really keep it prospering. In a pure technology sense, Wipro has a group of world’s most talented developers and technologists; they are excellent, but they are also very cheap, and this is how the company has proved itself cost-effective to its clients. Think about this: who would refuse to receive world-class information consultations while only paying a comparatively low price?
Wipro is visioning for the future so it is no longer satisfied on just providing cheap and good IT services to its clients. For Wipro, being regarded as a high-valued and non-replicable partner by its clients is its new goal and it will eventually turn the organization into a global branded enterprise. In order to achieve this goal, changes have been made by Wipro and its strategy is to build local presence by opening development centers nearby client organizations, hiring local talents, and acquiring smaller companies.
Discussion
Are they ready for the challenge?
The “they” here stands for IBM, Accenture, Deloitte, or any other big boys in the industry. We all remember the short-lived panic over the overseas migration of manufacturing jobs in the 1980s; it was short-lived because it did not affect what pushed America’s economy forward: innovation and knowledge. From then to now, America is still the world’s No.1 place of producing talents of innovation and high-value information services. However, in today’s knowledge economy, more and more companies like Wipro have become capable of providing solutions in the same good, or even better quality, but for a cheaper price to its clients. They are charging upstream into the consulting field and other high-value services while its bigger American competitors are rushing downstream. This may not seem by the big boys as a truly threatening challenge right now, but they will eventually pay if they do not take it seriously.
My opinion is that big guys will always play, since they are resourced. However the way they choose to approach will definitely be a matter of difference. In nature, knowledge economy is so different from manufacturing economy, as it lays on brain work rather than intensive labor work. As offshore outsourcing has become a trend or even commodity, can American companies keep their brain of talent outstanding? This would be an interesting thing to see as the time goes on.
What about them? Are they ready for the challenge?
This time the “they” stands for Wipro and similar organizations. Wipro has a vision, it wants to provide high-value consulting services to clients, and build long term partnership with those clients, in order to ensure growth and profitability, and gradually create itself a global brand. As the efforts, Wipro has decided to expand itself by opening development centers nearby its American clients, hiring local talents, and outsourcing some of its outsourced works to other third world countries, such as Vietnam and Philippines, or even back to America. “Instant industry presence”, Wipro’s goal is obvious that it wants to quickly and effectively tap into the high profitable IT consulting business.
But, the challenges lie in front for Wipro are tough. “…so we think that in anything having to do with technology, we should be world-class.” From Hammonds’ interview scripts with some of the Wipro employees in Bangalore, I could see the confidence and passion shown; however, could this confidence turn into overconfidence, or even complacency? It is always true that “if what you do can be done by anyone, there will always be someone willing to do it for less.” To tackle this critical fact, Wipro will need to offer services that are high-valued and non-replicable. And as the common thought in Wipro is to consistently offer the best technology solutions in the world, it will need to keep up with this promise, which is not an easy job to do. Also, it is obvious that Wipro will not be able to soon stand shoulder to shoulder with giants like Accenture or IBM. As mentioned above, these organizations have their names long been renowned in the industry, they are resourced, and they are always willing to compete.
In my opinion, the opportunity for Wipro is great. It has the vision and passion, and most importantly it has the talents. However, along the way it will face many challenges; growing is good, but growing too fast without caution and careful management could rather be dangerous. Creating global presence means that the company must integrate its services and have an outstanding global-delivery system; and this could distinguish it from the true global organization. Perhaps Wipro could take a look at what other big boys had done in the past. Still, the management of Wipro must be willing and be able to see both sides of the change; they must understand that building a global brand is not an easy and quick task.
Are they thinking about just the cost?
By the time the article was written, Hammonds argued it was India’s poverty made the country so appealing to organizations such as IBM, Oracle as a source of low-cost labor. And a higher standard of living will threaten India’s competitive advantage. Upon this statement, I might argue that why the author believed a higher standard of living will threaten India’s competitive advantage? As one of the fastest growing economics in the world, India is improving a lot of its domestic problems, such as poverty and lack of education. More education means more talents and employments, then why foreign organizations refuse to take this advantage? I understand that the author’s point was on cost, that more education also means more incomes. However, as aforementioned, organizations will only remove the works from where they were originated and get them done somewhere else that is most cost effective. Cost may be the foremost determinant for companies’ outsourcing decisions; however, as more and more critical jobs are being outsourced, quality of work will come in front and I believe companies will always be willing to pay a higher price for those works.
But, aiming for cost-effective also means there are always options. Today we can see Wipro from India thriving, in the near future we may also see company X from Vietnam or Ukraine catching people’s eyes. In the face of today’s global competition, opportunities could rise anywhere.
Sidebar
Wipro Tech is an information technology services company established in India in 1980. It is the global IT services arm of Wipro Limited. It is headquartered in Bangalore and is the third largest IT services company in India. It has more than 70,000 employees as of September 2007, including its business process outsourcing (BPO) arm which it acquired in 2002. Wipro has a revenue of more than US $3billion.
Wipro has over 300 customers across US, Europe, and Japan, including 50 of the Fortune 500 companies. Some of its notable customers are Boeing, BP, Cisco, Ericsson, Microsoft, Sony, and Toshiba. It is listed on the NYSE and is part of the TMT (technology media telecom) index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wipro
References/Recommended readings:
Indian Outsourcer Wipro’s Strategy: Innovation Push, Global Hiring, Acquisitions. http://www.cio.com/article/140100
The Hottest Trend in Outsourcing Management: Dedicated Centers. http://www.cio.com/article/29685/The_Hottest_Trend_in_Outsourcing_Management_Dedicated_Centers
What’s Next for India: Beyond the Back Office. http://www.bcg.com/publications/files/Beyond_Back_Office_Feb2007.pdf
Business Lessons from Wipro’s Chief. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2003/tc2003108_6179_tc121.htm?chan=search
Outsourcing: Beyond Bangalore. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2006/tc20061207_164472.htm?chan=search
The Agenda - Grassroots Leadership - Fast Company - W. Max Eichbaum
Summary:
The Agenda – Grassroots Leadership is an article that follows the brief career of D. Michael Abrashoff aboard the USS Benfold. Abrashoff commanded the USS Benfold, one of the Navy’s most successful warships, from 1997 until 1999. The USS Benfold is a $1 billion Arleigh Burke-class destroyer whose crew has proved their merit over and over again by leading some of the most critical missions on Iraq in 1997 and winning many awards, including the coveted Spokane Trophy for combat readiness which hadn’t been awarded to a ship of its class in ten years. Abrashoff is commonly accredited as being the leading cause for the Benfold’s exceptional record. What is more amazing than the Benfold’s record itself is the approach Abrashoff incorporated to attain that level of excellence. His motto, “innovative practices combined with true empowerment produce phenomenal results,” begins to shed light on how his perspective on leading and managing might differ from typical naval fashion. In fact, he wrote a book on the lessons that he took from the Benfold entitled It's Your Ship: Management Techniques from the Best Damn Ship in the Navy.
Behind Abrashoff's relaxed confidence is his own brand of organizational zeal. Settling into his stateroom, Abrashoff, 38, props his feet on a coffee table, sips a soda, and says, "I divide the world into believers and infidels. What the infidels don't understand -- and they far outnumber the believers -- is that innovative practices combined with true empowerment produce phenomenal results." (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
That the ranks of the nonbelievers include most of his superiors and fellow commanding officers doesn't deter Abrashoff one bit. "I'm lucky," he says. "All I ever wanted to do in the navy was to command a ship. I don't care if I ever get promoted again. And that attitude has enabled me to do the right things for my people instead of doing the right things for my career. In the process, I ended up with the best ship in the navy -- and I got the best evaluation of my career. The unintended benefit? My promotion is guaranteed!" After completing his 20-month tour of duty as commander of the Benfold this past January, Abrashoff reported to a top post at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
But what exactly is it that abrashoff did that was so different from his contemporaries? Well, in the article he outlines six points that he has found to encapsulate the distinction of his management philosophy from that of his colleagues:
1) Don't just take command -- communicate purpose.
The bottom line is that the benfold is a battle ship and the most important factor in its measurement is combat readiness. Abrashoff understands that this is an important principle to reiterate throughout all processes on the ship and use as a chopping block when evaluating processes. If a process is practiced and traditional but does not lead to combat readiness then it is reviewed and may be scrapped. The people on this ship have responded well to the style of management where ever action has a reaction and, more importantly, a greater importance in combat readiness instead of a management style that is less transparent and leadsw the workers to wonder why they are performing the task that they are performing.
2) Leaders listen without prejudice.
Most people in this organization are in "transmit mode" -- meaning that they don't "receive" very well. But it's amazing what you discover when you listen to them. When I first took charge of the Benfold, I was having trouble learning the names of everyone in the crew, so I decided to interview five people a day. Along with Master Chief Bob Scheeler, the senior enlisted guy on the ship, I met with each person individually and asked three simple questions: What do you like most about the Benfold? What do you like least? What would you change if you could? Most of these sailors had never been in a CO's cabin before. But once they saw that the invitation was sincere, they gave me suggestions for change that made life easier for the whole crew and also increased our combat-readiness ratings. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
The term “listening” gets thrown around a lot these days but Abrashoff actually found a way to listen to people that he was managing and used the knowledge gained from those interactions to change processes on the ship. The firs thing he did was divide the input that he had received into mission and non-mission critical tasks. Then, he tacked the most demoralizing tasks first with the intention of alleviating the most strained personnel.
I tackled the most demoralizing things first -- like chipping-and-painting. Because ships sit in salt water and rust, chipping-and-painting has always been a standard task for sailors. So every couple of months, my youngest sailors -- the ones I most want to connect with -- were spending entire days sanding down rust and repainting the ship. It was a huge waste of physical effort. A quick investigation revealed that everything -- from the stanchions and metal plates to the nuts and bolts used topside -- were made of ferrous material, which rusts. I had every nut and bolt replaced with stainless steel hardware. Then I found a commercial firm in town that uses a new process that involves baking metal, flame-spraying it with a rust inhibitor and with paint, and then powder-coating it with more paint. The entire process cost just $25,000, and that paint job is good for 30 years. The kids haven't picked up a paintbrush since. And they've had a lot more time to learn their jobs. As a result, we've seen a huge increase in every readiness indicator that I can think of. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
Not only was Abrashoff interested in their jobs, he was interested in their lives. He asked about their families and their life goals. He learned that a lot of his men wished to eventually go to college. So, he arranged a SAT testing facility and pulled a few strings to fly in a tester to administer the test. The effects on moral were palpable.
3) Practice discipline without formalism.
In many units -- and in many businesses -- a lot of time and effort are spent on supporting the guy on top. Anyone on my ship will tell you that I'm a low-maintenance CO. It's not about me; it's about my crew. Those initial interviews set the tone: In my chain of command, high performance is the boss. That means that people don't tell me what I want to hear; they tell me the truth about what's going on in the ship. It also means that they don't wait for an official inspection or run every action up and down the chain of command before they do things -- they just do them. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
Abrashoff made sure to get the information that he needed from the people that worked for him. His meetings were not just a PR gig, they actually allowed the workers to voice how their work was getting done and how they thought that it could get done more efficiently. He followed up on those changes and within a few months, he had changed over 40 operating procedures on the ship and every one of them added to combat readiness measuments.
4) The best captains hand out responsibility -- not orders.
Companies complain about turnover, but a ship's company isn't a static population. Not counting dropouts and other separations, about 35% of a ship's crew transfers out every year. That means that I must be constantly vigilant about cultivating new experts. After improving the food on this ship, my next priorities were to advance my people and to train my junior officers, who are called on repeatedly to make life-and-death decisions. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
The real corner stone of Abrashoff's management style is that he actually empowers his staff. This is incredibly important given his particular area of work. He has to count on the decisions that the people below him will make in a combat situation and the only way to build that confidence is to give them responsibility all the time and allow them to improve their skill set.
As a result, we have the most proficient training teams on the waterfront and a promotion rate that's over the top. In the last advancement cycle (that's the process that determines base pay, housing allowance, and sea pay), Benfold sailors got promoted at a rate that was twice as high as the navy average. I advanced 86 sailors in 1998. That amounts to a huge chunk of change and a lot of esteem for roughly one-third of my crew. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
5) Successful crews perform with devotion.
At a conference for commanding officers that I attended recently, more than half of the officers there argued that paying attention to quality of life (QOL, as we call it) interferes with mission accomplishment. That's ridiculous. It doesn't make sense to treat these young folks as expendable. The navy came up 7,000 people short of its 52,000-person recruitment goal in 1998, and it expects to be 12,000 people short of its goal in 1999. In every branch of the military, one-third of all recruits never complete their first term of enlistment. We've got to provide reasons for people to join, to stay -- and to perform. The leader's job is to provide an environment in which people are not only able to do well but want to do well. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
QOL is a big deal to Abrashoff and for that reasons he was willing to bend the rules enough to let his men get out and explore the ports that they were docked at in Dubai. Due to his efforts, the trip has become a typical activity and has begun a move towards improving the lives of sailors on large boring ships during extended activities at sea. To Abrashoff, it is an integral part of running a ship.
Maintaining "quality of life" is simply a matter of paying attention to what causes dissatisfaction among the crew. You do what you can to remove those "dissatisfiers" while increasing the "satisfiers." Increasing satisfaction may be as simple as recognizing that everybody loves music and then setting up a great sound system or buying a karaoke machine. "Quality of life" is also a matter of creating an environment in which everyone is treated with respect and dignity. The Benfold is one of the first ships in the navy that was built from the keel up to accommodate women. It's no secret that the military has had problems with sexual harassment and with prejudice in general. Yet when we do equal-opportunity surveys for the Benfold, we get stunning results: Only 3% of minorities on board reported any type of racial prejudice, and only 3% of women reported any form of sexual harassment. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
6) True change is permanent.
Ships in the navy tend to take on the personality of their commanding officers. But neither my crew nor I worry about what will happen now that I've moved on. We've set up a virtuous circle that lets people know that their contribution counts. This crew has produced phenomenal results, and now it's motivated to do even better. My attitude is, once you start perestroika, you can't really stop it. The people on this ship know that they are part owners of this organization. They know what results they get when they play an active role. And they now have the courage to raise their hands and to get heard. That's almost irreversible. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
The most notable element of Abrashoff's influence on the management practices in place at the Benfold is that they have lasted longer than his own time with that ship. He argues that much of his success is due to giving people a voice and that once you give peope a voice, it is hard to silence them.
Discussion:
The most startling component of Abrashoff”s story is the environment from which is emanates. Typically, when one thinks on the management structure in place in the armed forces, one is led to assume a very strictly enforced hierarchical chain of command. While Abrashoff maintained a strict chain of command during combat time, he utilized more impressive management strategies during non-combat time and was able to distinguish between the two
Most notable, was Abrashoff's ability to get feedback from the staff of the Benfold. That type of intelligence is incredibly valuable and typically hard to receive. I believe that his ability to receive that feedback was contingent on the fact that he used the feedback in very visible adjustments to the operating procedure and in doing so he enforced the idea that he was not just another ear with no brain.
Another reason that Abrashoff's methods were impressive was that he was very willing to question and criticize the organizational history of the Benfold. Often, one finds that managers are in some ways constrained by the history of their predecessors. This convention can plague organizations, especially those with as much history as the US Navy. Abrashoff was very active in his attack on this tendency. He listened to his people and made changes that other commanders would have considered insane, just because they were so entrenched in the organizational history. For example, he put in place measures so that his freshed people would not have to be encumbered with the demoralizing task of continually painting the ship. Other commanders may have seen this activity as tradition, but Abrashoff was able to consider it from a clear management position and see it as a time and moral waster.
Abrashoff's unique management style has promoted him to a position in DC and he is no longer the commander of the Benfold, but his accomplishments live on and can be followed at the USS Benfold's link below.
References:
http://www.benfold.navy.mil/
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au24-196.htm
http://www.cio.com/article/111252/Create_an_ldquo_Agile_rdquo_Enterprise
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/1997/05/05/smallb3.html?page=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Benfold_(DDG-65)
The Agenda – Grassroots Leadership is an article that follows the brief career of D. Michael Abrashoff aboard the USS Benfold. Abrashoff commanded the USS Benfold, one of the Navy’s most successful warships, from 1997 until 1999. The USS Benfold is a $1 billion Arleigh Burke-class destroyer whose crew has proved their merit over and over again by leading some of the most critical missions on Iraq in 1997 and winning many awards, including the coveted Spokane Trophy for combat readiness which hadn’t been awarded to a ship of its class in ten years. Abrashoff is commonly accredited as being the leading cause for the Benfold’s exceptional record. What is more amazing than the Benfold’s record itself is the approach Abrashoff incorporated to attain that level of excellence. His motto, “innovative practices combined with true empowerment produce phenomenal results,” begins to shed light on how his perspective on leading and managing might differ from typical naval fashion. In fact, he wrote a book on the lessons that he took from the Benfold entitled It's Your Ship: Management Techniques from the Best Damn Ship in the Navy.
Behind Abrashoff's relaxed confidence is his own brand of organizational zeal. Settling into his stateroom, Abrashoff, 38, props his feet on a coffee table, sips a soda, and says, "I divide the world into believers and infidels. What the infidels don't understand -- and they far outnumber the believers -- is that innovative practices combined with true empowerment produce phenomenal results." (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
That the ranks of the nonbelievers include most of his superiors and fellow commanding officers doesn't deter Abrashoff one bit. "I'm lucky," he says. "All I ever wanted to do in the navy was to command a ship. I don't care if I ever get promoted again. And that attitude has enabled me to do the right things for my people instead of doing the right things for my career. In the process, I ended up with the best ship in the navy -- and I got the best evaluation of my career. The unintended benefit? My promotion is guaranteed!" After completing his 20-month tour of duty as commander of the Benfold this past January, Abrashoff reported to a top post at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
But what exactly is it that abrashoff did that was so different from his contemporaries? Well, in the article he outlines six points that he has found to encapsulate the distinction of his management philosophy from that of his colleagues:
1) Don't just take command -- communicate purpose.
The bottom line is that the benfold is a battle ship and the most important factor in its measurement is combat readiness. Abrashoff understands that this is an important principle to reiterate throughout all processes on the ship and use as a chopping block when evaluating processes. If a process is practiced and traditional but does not lead to combat readiness then it is reviewed and may be scrapped. The people on this ship have responded well to the style of management where ever action has a reaction and, more importantly, a greater importance in combat readiness instead of a management style that is less transparent and leadsw the workers to wonder why they are performing the task that they are performing.
2) Leaders listen without prejudice.
Most people in this organization are in "transmit mode" -- meaning that they don't "receive" very well. But it's amazing what you discover when you listen to them. When I first took charge of the Benfold, I was having trouble learning the names of everyone in the crew, so I decided to interview five people a day. Along with Master Chief Bob Scheeler, the senior enlisted guy on the ship, I met with each person individually and asked three simple questions: What do you like most about the Benfold? What do you like least? What would you change if you could? Most of these sailors had never been in a CO's cabin before. But once they saw that the invitation was sincere, they gave me suggestions for change that made life easier for the whole crew and also increased our combat-readiness ratings. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
The term “listening” gets thrown around a lot these days but Abrashoff actually found a way to listen to people that he was managing and used the knowledge gained from those interactions to change processes on the ship. The firs thing he did was divide the input that he had received into mission and non-mission critical tasks. Then, he tacked the most demoralizing tasks first with the intention of alleviating the most strained personnel.
I tackled the most demoralizing things first -- like chipping-and-painting. Because ships sit in salt water and rust, chipping-and-painting has always been a standard task for sailors. So every couple of months, my youngest sailors -- the ones I most want to connect with -- were spending entire days sanding down rust and repainting the ship. It was a huge waste of physical effort. A quick investigation revealed that everything -- from the stanchions and metal plates to the nuts and bolts used topside -- were made of ferrous material, which rusts. I had every nut and bolt replaced with stainless steel hardware. Then I found a commercial firm in town that uses a new process that involves baking metal, flame-spraying it with a rust inhibitor and with paint, and then powder-coating it with more paint. The entire process cost just $25,000, and that paint job is good for 30 years. The kids haven't picked up a paintbrush since. And they've had a lot more time to learn their jobs. As a result, we've seen a huge increase in every readiness indicator that I can think of. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
Not only was Abrashoff interested in their jobs, he was interested in their lives. He asked about their families and their life goals. He learned that a lot of his men wished to eventually go to college. So, he arranged a SAT testing facility and pulled a few strings to fly in a tester to administer the test. The effects on moral were palpable.
3) Practice discipline without formalism.
In many units -- and in many businesses -- a lot of time and effort are spent on supporting the guy on top. Anyone on my ship will tell you that I'm a low-maintenance CO. It's not about me; it's about my crew. Those initial interviews set the tone: In my chain of command, high performance is the boss. That means that people don't tell me what I want to hear; they tell me the truth about what's going on in the ship. It also means that they don't wait for an official inspection or run every action up and down the chain of command before they do things -- they just do them. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
Abrashoff made sure to get the information that he needed from the people that worked for him. His meetings were not just a PR gig, they actually allowed the workers to voice how their work was getting done and how they thought that it could get done more efficiently. He followed up on those changes and within a few months, he had changed over 40 operating procedures on the ship and every one of them added to combat readiness measuments.
4) The best captains hand out responsibility -- not orders.
Companies complain about turnover, but a ship's company isn't a static population. Not counting dropouts and other separations, about 35% of a ship's crew transfers out every year. That means that I must be constantly vigilant about cultivating new experts. After improving the food on this ship, my next priorities were to advance my people and to train my junior officers, who are called on repeatedly to make life-and-death decisions. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
The real corner stone of Abrashoff's management style is that he actually empowers his staff. This is incredibly important given his particular area of work. He has to count on the decisions that the people below him will make in a combat situation and the only way to build that confidence is to give them responsibility all the time and allow them to improve their skill set.
As a result, we have the most proficient training teams on the waterfront and a promotion rate that's over the top. In the last advancement cycle (that's the process that determines base pay, housing allowance, and sea pay), Benfold sailors got promoted at a rate that was twice as high as the navy average. I advanced 86 sailors in 1998. That amounts to a huge chunk of change and a lot of esteem for roughly one-third of my crew. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
5) Successful crews perform with devotion.
At a conference for commanding officers that I attended recently, more than half of the officers there argued that paying attention to quality of life (QOL, as we call it) interferes with mission accomplishment. That's ridiculous. It doesn't make sense to treat these young folks as expendable. The navy came up 7,000 people short of its 52,000-person recruitment goal in 1998, and it expects to be 12,000 people short of its goal in 1999. In every branch of the military, one-third of all recruits never complete their first term of enlistment. We've got to provide reasons for people to join, to stay -- and to perform. The leader's job is to provide an environment in which people are not only able to do well but want to do well. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
QOL is a big deal to Abrashoff and for that reasons he was willing to bend the rules enough to let his men get out and explore the ports that they were docked at in Dubai. Due to his efforts, the trip has become a typical activity and has begun a move towards improving the lives of sailors on large boring ships during extended activities at sea. To Abrashoff, it is an integral part of running a ship.
Maintaining "quality of life" is simply a matter of paying attention to what causes dissatisfaction among the crew. You do what you can to remove those "dissatisfiers" while increasing the "satisfiers." Increasing satisfaction may be as simple as recognizing that everybody loves music and then setting up a great sound system or buying a karaoke machine. "Quality of life" is also a matter of creating an environment in which everyone is treated with respect and dignity. The Benfold is one of the first ships in the navy that was built from the keel up to accommodate women. It's no secret that the military has had problems with sexual harassment and with prejudice in general. Yet when we do equal-opportunity surveys for the Benfold, we get stunning results: Only 3% of minorities on board reported any type of racial prejudice, and only 3% of women reported any form of sexual harassment. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
6) True change is permanent.
Ships in the navy tend to take on the personality of their commanding officers. But neither my crew nor I worry about what will happen now that I've moved on. We've set up a virtuous circle that lets people know that their contribution counts. This crew has produced phenomenal results, and now it's motivated to do even better. My attitude is, once you start perestroika, you can't really stop it. The people on this ship know that they are part owners of this organization. They know what results they get when they play an active role. And they now have the courage to raise their hands and to get heard. That's almost irreversible. (Polly LaBarre, 1999)
The most notable element of Abrashoff's influence on the management practices in place at the Benfold is that they have lasted longer than his own time with that ship. He argues that much of his success is due to giving people a voice and that once you give peope a voice, it is hard to silence them.
Discussion:
The most startling component of Abrashoff”s story is the environment from which is emanates. Typically, when one thinks on the management structure in place in the armed forces, one is led to assume a very strictly enforced hierarchical chain of command. While Abrashoff maintained a strict chain of command during combat time, he utilized more impressive management strategies during non-combat time and was able to distinguish between the two
Most notable, was Abrashoff's ability to get feedback from the staff of the Benfold. That type of intelligence is incredibly valuable and typically hard to receive. I believe that his ability to receive that feedback was contingent on the fact that he used the feedback in very visible adjustments to the operating procedure and in doing so he enforced the idea that he was not just another ear with no brain.
Another reason that Abrashoff's methods were impressive was that he was very willing to question and criticize the organizational history of the Benfold. Often, one finds that managers are in some ways constrained by the history of their predecessors. This convention can plague organizations, especially those with as much history as the US Navy. Abrashoff was very active in his attack on this tendency. He listened to his people and made changes that other commanders would have considered insane, just because they were so entrenched in the organizational history. For example, he put in place measures so that his freshed people would not have to be encumbered with the demoralizing task of continually painting the ship. Other commanders may have seen this activity as tradition, but Abrashoff was able to consider it from a clear management position and see it as a time and moral waster.
Abrashoff's unique management style has promoted him to a position in DC and he is no longer the commander of the Benfold, but his accomplishments live on and can be followed at the USS Benfold's link below.
References:
http://www.benfold.navy.mil/
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au24-196.htm
http://www.cio.com/article/111252/Create_an_ldquo_Agile_rdquo_Enterprise
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/1997/05/05/smallb3.html?page=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Benfold_(DDG-65)
Vote of Confidence - Fast Company - Jun Shao
Article Summary
Linda Tischer took a tour across the United States, visiting people and companies that were playing with confidence and playing to win. Linda believed the three stories might boost readers’ confidence, an essential characteristic of business nowadays.
The first story was about Benioff. He launched salesforce.com in 1999 against the economic turmoil of the recent years. In 2002, its revenue skyrocketed from $23 million last year to a projected $50 and $60 million.
Benioff’s new business model contributed to the company’s triumph. Instead of installing software on each user's PC, salesforce.com rented out its service by the month for between $65 and $125 per user, depending on the sophistication of the application. That approach eliminated the up-front investment required by enterprise software and overwhelms its competitors, such as the Siebel System.
Benioff exuded his confidence and insisted that salesforce.com would thrive for the following unique features of the company.
It had a radically different technology, which was the utility idea.
It had a radically different business model -- the idea that you could pay as you went.
It had a radically different philanthropic model, the salesforces.com Foundation, nonprofit organization that provided technology and software to young people in disadvantaged communities.
The second story was about coaching confidence. Loehr worked as performance psychologist of LCE Performance Systems Inc. to teach executives to cope – to rebuild their confidence – by building and managing their energy.
Participants were forced to compare their stated values with how they lived their lives and to figure out where they were in conflict. When the tension between the vision and the reality became intolerable, Loehr taught participants to build rituals that brought those disparate goals together. Thus those participants would have an uptick in energy, balance, and attitude that could fuel high workplace performance. The ideal was that Loehr suggested that workdays were defined periods of that high workplace performance alternating with short intervals of recovery.
Loehr’s work was high evaluated as to recovering confidence. He also mentioned that one secret of confidence was simply acting as the winner.
The third story was about Panera, a darling of both customers seeking an alternative to fast food. It was investor hoping to find that rare company whose stock had been rising like a loaf of sourdough.
Shaich, the CEO of Panera, became a licensee of Au Bon Pain, the Boston-based company that put croissants on the American fast-food map. He and his partner, Kane, invented “quick casual”, which saved Au Bon Pain from struggling situation and expanded to 200 stores, for white-collar folks. However, the market was limited and real estates near where white-collar folks were expensive.
Shaich and the team kept looking for new business opportunities. They discovered the start of a backlash against the communization of food that began in 1950 and spawned a coast-to-coast sameness. They believed that their new bought bread company, Panera, would meet the trends and thus have huge potential. The team decided to sell Au Bon Pain and turn their full attention toward growing Panera.
Panera were proved to have the right formula of qualified people, food, and environment. It could very easily become a 1,000 unit chain. But Shaich and the team work hard to keep challenging the existing assumptions to reach the goal that they have the best bread in the country.
Discussion
Confidence, a positive feeling of change
We have already learned in classes that feelings, such as frustration, anger, anxiety, and pessimism[1] might hinder the launch of needed changes. These are the negative feelings in changing people’s behavior. How about the positive ones? This article explores how confidence contributes to changes.
There are gaps between current states and desired states. Confidence drives people to make the leap, enabling them to change their behavior. Without confidence, Benioff would not load salesforce.com against the recent depression of the information technology industry. He would either stay in Oracle (No change to his career) or accept the offer of his former colleague Tom Siebel (No change to the traditional software model). Shaich and his team would still work in Au Bon Pain, even when it reached its market limit. They would make no change to their business. Let us go to the definition of the confidence: It is a mental process that arises from considering if a person or thing is capable of something[2]. It is the feeling of momentum to change.
Loehr’s program is definitely to rebuild their confidence that you can change in the mental perspective. The participants have to find out the divergence between what they want to do and what they are doing now until it becomes intolerable. Loehr does not simply tell the participants how to eliminate the divergence. He taught them how to prepare the change from divergences to consistencies easily by defined periods of that high workplace performance alternating with short intervals of recovery. Some tips are also shared such as acting as a winner.
Like Rip Coburn’s change function[3], I present my understanding of feelings with a similar change function.
Change = f (sum (positive feelings), sum (negative feelings))
Confidence is definitely one of the positive feelings. We make decisions based on the consideration which one is more important, the positive feelings or the negative feelings. As Rosanne Cash said “The key to change is to let go of fears” [4], confidence is the magic pill to cure negative feelings, such as fear.
Achieve confidence in change
When I go back to the book “the Heart of Change” and the eight stages of successful changes, I found those stages also contribute to achieve confidence.
Saleforces.com and Panera have wonderful guide team. Benioff is so tough that he took the risk to fire his CEO while Loehr and his team are very good at catching new business opportunities.
Benioff’s story concerns how people achieve confidence at the beginning of the change. He has the right vision. The market paid back to his unique model. Also, he had the wonderful idea of the non-profit foundation, which contributes to his employees’ confidence since they want to be part of something big not for IPO.
Panera is in the later stage of changes. The organization simply makes change stick. They create waves of changes to improve their quality of products and services, such as bread, the environment, wireless networks, and etc. More radically, if they find that they can not meet the goal, they will make a big wave of changing from the previous business flow to a new one, just like they sold Au Bon Pain and then turned their full attention toward growing Panera.
Loehr’s tips were so called short term wins. He defined much easy goals, such as training his athletes in the "matador walk" to build up confidences, the first momentum of changes.
Confidence is not merely a mental factor in change.
I would like to say that confidence contributes to business, especially stock markets[5]. The world is of changes. What makes us adapted to changes? One of the answers is confidence. The more successful changes we make, the more confidence we have to make changes. It is a change and feeling cycle.
Related articles
Pratt, C. (2005). How to Easily Achieve Confidence and Success - Guaranteed. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.life-with-confidence.com/achieve-confidence-and-success-guaranteed.html
Pratt, C. (2005). Life Change - 6 Reasons Why We're Afraid to Change. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.life-with-confidence.com/life-change.html
Coburn , P. (2006). The Change Function. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/105/next-essay.html
Clegg, F. (2002). Rebuilding Canadian Business Confidence. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.microsoft.com/canada/media/speeches/speech_clegg_01_28_2002.htm
Grieder, E. (2003). Confidence, Simplicity and Openness to Change: Keyes for Leadership - Press Releases - McCombs School of Business - The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/pressreleases/keyes_wrap.asp
[1] Kotter, J., & Cohen, D. (2002). The Heart of Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
[2] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2007). Confidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence
[3] Coburn , P. (2006). The Change Function. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/105/next-essay.html
[4] Pratt, C. (2005). Life Change - 6 Reasons Why We're Afraid to Change. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.life-with-confidence.com/life-change.html
[5] Gordon , A. (2006). Maintaining Shareholders Confidence In Volatile Stock Market. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Maintaining-Shareholders-Confidence-In-Volatile-Stock-Market&id=376711
Linda Tischer took a tour across the United States, visiting people and companies that were playing with confidence and playing to win. Linda believed the three stories might boost readers’ confidence, an essential characteristic of business nowadays.
The first story was about Benioff. He launched salesforce.com in 1999 against the economic turmoil of the recent years. In 2002, its revenue skyrocketed from $23 million last year to a projected $50 and $60 million.
Benioff’s new business model contributed to the company’s triumph. Instead of installing software on each user's PC, salesforce.com rented out its service by the month for between $65 and $125 per user, depending on the sophistication of the application. That approach eliminated the up-front investment required by enterprise software and overwhelms its competitors, such as the Siebel System.
Benioff exuded his confidence and insisted that salesforce.com would thrive for the following unique features of the company.
It had a radically different technology, which was the utility idea.
It had a radically different business model -- the idea that you could pay as you went.
It had a radically different philanthropic model, the salesforces.com Foundation, nonprofit organization that provided technology and software to young people in disadvantaged communities.
The second story was about coaching confidence. Loehr worked as performance psychologist of LCE Performance Systems Inc. to teach executives to cope – to rebuild their confidence – by building and managing their energy.
Participants were forced to compare their stated values with how they lived their lives and to figure out where they were in conflict. When the tension between the vision and the reality became intolerable, Loehr taught participants to build rituals that brought those disparate goals together. Thus those participants would have an uptick in energy, balance, and attitude that could fuel high workplace performance. The ideal was that Loehr suggested that workdays were defined periods of that high workplace performance alternating with short intervals of recovery.
Loehr’s work was high evaluated as to recovering confidence. He also mentioned that one secret of confidence was simply acting as the winner.
The third story was about Panera, a darling of both customers seeking an alternative to fast food. It was investor hoping to find that rare company whose stock had been rising like a loaf of sourdough.
Shaich, the CEO of Panera, became a licensee of Au Bon Pain, the Boston-based company that put croissants on the American fast-food map. He and his partner, Kane, invented “quick casual”, which saved Au Bon Pain from struggling situation and expanded to 200 stores, for white-collar folks. However, the market was limited and real estates near where white-collar folks were expensive.
Shaich and the team kept looking for new business opportunities. They discovered the start of a backlash against the communization of food that began in 1950 and spawned a coast-to-coast sameness. They believed that their new bought bread company, Panera, would meet the trends and thus have huge potential. The team decided to sell Au Bon Pain and turn their full attention toward growing Panera.
Panera were proved to have the right formula of qualified people, food, and environment. It could very easily become a 1,000 unit chain. But Shaich and the team work hard to keep challenging the existing assumptions to reach the goal that they have the best bread in the country.
Discussion
Confidence, a positive feeling of change
We have already learned in classes that feelings, such as frustration, anger, anxiety, and pessimism[1] might hinder the launch of needed changes. These are the negative feelings in changing people’s behavior. How about the positive ones? This article explores how confidence contributes to changes.
There are gaps between current states and desired states. Confidence drives people to make the leap, enabling them to change their behavior. Without confidence, Benioff would not load salesforce.com against the recent depression of the information technology industry. He would either stay in Oracle (No change to his career) or accept the offer of his former colleague Tom Siebel (No change to the traditional software model). Shaich and his team would still work in Au Bon Pain, even when it reached its market limit. They would make no change to their business. Let us go to the definition of the confidence: It is a mental process that arises from considering if a person or thing is capable of something[2]. It is the feeling of momentum to change.
Loehr’s program is definitely to rebuild their confidence that you can change in the mental perspective. The participants have to find out the divergence between what they want to do and what they are doing now until it becomes intolerable. Loehr does not simply tell the participants how to eliminate the divergence. He taught them how to prepare the change from divergences to consistencies easily by defined periods of that high workplace performance alternating with short intervals of recovery. Some tips are also shared such as acting as a winner.
Like Rip Coburn’s change function[3], I present my understanding of feelings with a similar change function.
Change = f (sum (positive feelings), sum (negative feelings))
Confidence is definitely one of the positive feelings. We make decisions based on the consideration which one is more important, the positive feelings or the negative feelings. As Rosanne Cash said “The key to change is to let go of fears” [4], confidence is the magic pill to cure negative feelings, such as fear.
Achieve confidence in change
When I go back to the book “the Heart of Change” and the eight stages of successful changes, I found those stages also contribute to achieve confidence.
Saleforces.com and Panera have wonderful guide team. Benioff is so tough that he took the risk to fire his CEO while Loehr and his team are very good at catching new business opportunities.
Benioff’s story concerns how people achieve confidence at the beginning of the change. He has the right vision. The market paid back to his unique model. Also, he had the wonderful idea of the non-profit foundation, which contributes to his employees’ confidence since they want to be part of something big not for IPO.
Panera is in the later stage of changes. The organization simply makes change stick. They create waves of changes to improve their quality of products and services, such as bread, the environment, wireless networks, and etc. More radically, if they find that they can not meet the goal, they will make a big wave of changing from the previous business flow to a new one, just like they sold Au Bon Pain and then turned their full attention toward growing Panera.
Loehr’s tips were so called short term wins. He defined much easy goals, such as training his athletes in the "matador walk" to build up confidences, the first momentum of changes.
Confidence is not merely a mental factor in change.
I would like to say that confidence contributes to business, especially stock markets[5]. The world is of changes. What makes us adapted to changes? One of the answers is confidence. The more successful changes we make, the more confidence we have to make changes. It is a change and feeling cycle.
Related articles
Pratt, C. (2005). How to Easily Achieve Confidence and Success - Guaranteed. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.life-with-confidence.com/achieve-confidence-and-success-guaranteed.html
Pratt, C. (2005). Life Change - 6 Reasons Why We're Afraid to Change. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.life-with-confidence.com/life-change.html
Coburn , P. (2006). The Change Function. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/105/next-essay.html
Clegg, F. (2002). Rebuilding Canadian Business Confidence. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.microsoft.com/canada/media/speeches/speech_clegg_01_28_2002.htm
Grieder, E. (2003). Confidence, Simplicity and Openness to Change: Keyes for Leadership - Press Releases - McCombs School of Business - The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/pressreleases/keyes_wrap.asp
[1] Kotter, J., & Cohen, D. (2002). The Heart of Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
[2] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2007). Confidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence
[3] Coburn , P. (2006). The Change Function. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/105/next-essay.html
[4] Pratt, C. (2005). Life Change - 6 Reasons Why We're Afraid to Change. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.life-with-confidence.com/life-change.html
[5] Gordon , A. (2006). Maintaining Shareholders Confidence In Volatile Stock Market. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Maintaining-Shareholders-Confidence-In-Volatile-Stock-Market&id=376711
Grassroots Leadership- Royal Dutch/Shell - Fast Company - Lokesh Ramani
I found Richard Pascale’s article on Steve Miller, group managing director of Royal Dutch/Shell rather intriguing. Firstly, this article opened up a different perspective on what I thought about wholesale/ retail business models; in particular about the critical areas that can be fine tuned to achieve desirable business outcomes. Further, the article also demonstrated that effective leadership strategies may not always pertain with typical upper management issues, say broad strategic, legal, stakeholder domains etc. Finally, hailing from a democratic school of thought, this real-world study corroborated that empowering employees (in the lower hierarchy) with substantial responsibilities and guiding them with pertinent direction can be an effective leadership strategy to drive a business, the customer-centric way.
Royal Dutch/Shell – Background
With a current market capitalization of $178 billion, $128 billion in annual revenues, 101,000 employees, and operations in 130 countries around the globe, Royal Dutch/Shell is often cited as one of the world's largest businesses - but never as one of the fastest. With its 90-year history, its deep sense of tradition, and its carefully structured ways of doing things, Royal Dutch/Shell is often praised as a model of consistency and longevity - but never as one of creativity or innovation
Bureaucracy and its challenges
Miller identified that the organization needed to address issues through a customer-centric approach. When the change management initiatives designed to drive a change in the organization’s business strategy appeared to get bogged down among the top management due to complex governance structures, a whole new perspective to deal with the situation emerged. Shell's 47,000 filling stations, for example, served about 10 million customers each day; there was no better way to address change into the organization than focusing towards the issues at the frontline. Every retail outlet was influenced by the same diverse factors like geographic location, work culture, customer background & needs, regulatory compliances, etc. However these diverse factors had different associated weights depending upon the location and culture. It was extremely critical for the organization to realize that every retail outlet presented unique businesses opportunities provided these outlets could understand the market dynamics and customer needs. Steve Miller acknowledged that this unique business proposition could bring rich returns to the organization provided this opportunity was suitably tackled from a bottom-up perspective. This is an interesting business model to tackle retail based businesses. Typically organizations set up high level business strategy (distinct to every country) that drives directives company-wide to spell specifications for retail outlets. In this business model, in addition to broad existing directives, business potential is aimed to be maximized by allowing the front-line to function as entrepreneurial, self-directing units.
Empowerment
How to empower the frontline retail enterprises and their staff when the synergies between the parent wholesalers are at a bare minimum? This is a tremendous challenge for the retail business model put forward by Steve Miller and his think-tank. While, it has been identified that there exists strong market potential that can be tapped out from the front-line, how will the organization equip the front-line retail enterprises with the expertise and business acumen to maximize the returns, especially from a bottom-up approach? This bottom-up approach is challenging because each of these front-line business units have unique styles of functioning, with very little control from the parent-wholesaler. This also brings out an interesting fact; before empowering an entity, it is critical to analyze that specific entity’s current status with respect to expertise, resources and the level of influence it pulls over the business. To equip these frontline units with the tools and strategy to make a company-wide impact, it was necessary to identify pertinent stakeholders at each of these units and train them to tap and convert potential business opportunities into revenue both for the retail unit and the main organization. Teams across the globe were brought together to participate in a retail-boot camp, where they were oriented and trained for necessary business skills to apply them in their respective real-world situations. An ongoing mechanism was established; the teams which went back shared the knowledge and trained their peers to achieve maximum coverage. The teams that went back developed business plans which they brought back for review after a period of 60 days. This was a peer-review challenge, with the best business plans being selected as good models for the retails units to leverage for their respective enterprises. This way, Steve Miller found an efficient mechanism to bring the disconnected frontline units to speed in the business front and empower them to make pertinent changes based on the market environment, customer needs and business opportunities. In short, these retail units would start functioning as independent businesses (with only broad guidance) with an entrepreneurial and innovative strategy.
Leadership: Redefined
Steve Miller exhibited characteristics that some may term “unconventional” for a typical CEO/Director of big organizations. While CEOs and senior management executives are increasingly caught up with board meetings, press debriefs, all-hands meetings, etc, Steve Miller found it important to connect with the front-line employees who shared a better picture about the state of business and customer needs. By connecting with these employees, Steve Miller was able to break complex governance barriers that impede a sense of transparency between the executive management and the rest of the organization. Further, by establishing a close connection with the frontline employees, Steve Miller was able to reaffirm that it was critical for these frontline business units to leverage innovative strategies to run their respective businesses and convince these employees that they had the potential to run their businesses just the way a senior management executive would run an organization.
Miller acknowledged that empowering the frontline employees with higher responsibilities and power served better for the organization than allowing the executive management to wrestle for all the powers and decision-making strategies. Part of this involved, moving from a “holier-than-thou-know-it-all” attitude towards more of a guiding force and a teacher style of leadership strategy. Steve Miller had to relinquish certain responsibilities and transition them to the frontline, because the mechanism seemed to be a better growth driver for the organization. To achieve this transition, Steve Miller took up the role of an active mentor and guiding force to ensure the frontline was equipped with the necessary capabilities and expertise to handle the transition. This leadership attribute is noteworthy. It is not only important for effective leaders to take charge and deliver, but also necessary to acknowledge leadership potential in the lower ranks and let go of important responsibilities.
Closing Notes
From an overall perspective, it was interesting to read about large scale change management strategies and their implementation for a large organization like Royal Dutch/Shell. I was particularly impressed by Steve Miller’s ability to recognize the power of the people and devise strategies to identify and develop leadership potential in the front-line. Certainly, what this has established is an ongoing mechanism that will serve as a significant growth driver for the organization in future.
References
“Grassroots Leadership – Royal Dutch/Shell” : http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/14/grassroots.html
“Turning around an Ailing IT Organization”: http://www.cio.com/article/5212/Turning_Around_an_Ailing_IT_Organization/1
“New Face of Leadership”: http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2001/05/shell_miller.html
Royal Dutch/Shell – Background
With a current market capitalization of $178 billion, $128 billion in annual revenues, 101,000 employees, and operations in 130 countries around the globe, Royal Dutch/Shell is often cited as one of the world's largest businesses - but never as one of the fastest. With its 90-year history, its deep sense of tradition, and its carefully structured ways of doing things, Royal Dutch/Shell is often praised as a model of consistency and longevity - but never as one of creativity or innovation
Bureaucracy and its challenges
Miller identified that the organization needed to address issues through a customer-centric approach. When the change management initiatives designed to drive a change in the organization’s business strategy appeared to get bogged down among the top management due to complex governance structures, a whole new perspective to deal with the situation emerged. Shell's 47,000 filling stations, for example, served about 10 million customers each day; there was no better way to address change into the organization than focusing towards the issues at the frontline. Every retail outlet was influenced by the same diverse factors like geographic location, work culture, customer background & needs, regulatory compliances, etc. However these diverse factors had different associated weights depending upon the location and culture. It was extremely critical for the organization to realize that every retail outlet presented unique businesses opportunities provided these outlets could understand the market dynamics and customer needs. Steve Miller acknowledged that this unique business proposition could bring rich returns to the organization provided this opportunity was suitably tackled from a bottom-up perspective. This is an interesting business model to tackle retail based businesses. Typically organizations set up high level business strategy (distinct to every country) that drives directives company-wide to spell specifications for retail outlets. In this business model, in addition to broad existing directives, business potential is aimed to be maximized by allowing the front-line to function as entrepreneurial, self-directing units.
Empowerment
How to empower the frontline retail enterprises and their staff when the synergies between the parent wholesalers are at a bare minimum? This is a tremendous challenge for the retail business model put forward by Steve Miller and his think-tank. While, it has been identified that there exists strong market potential that can be tapped out from the front-line, how will the organization equip the front-line retail enterprises with the expertise and business acumen to maximize the returns, especially from a bottom-up approach? This bottom-up approach is challenging because each of these front-line business units have unique styles of functioning, with very little control from the parent-wholesaler. This also brings out an interesting fact; before empowering an entity, it is critical to analyze that specific entity’s current status with respect to expertise, resources and the level of influence it pulls over the business. To equip these frontline units with the tools and strategy to make a company-wide impact, it was necessary to identify pertinent stakeholders at each of these units and train them to tap and convert potential business opportunities into revenue both for the retail unit and the main organization. Teams across the globe were brought together to participate in a retail-boot camp, where they were oriented and trained for necessary business skills to apply them in their respective real-world situations. An ongoing mechanism was established; the teams which went back shared the knowledge and trained their peers to achieve maximum coverage. The teams that went back developed business plans which they brought back for review after a period of 60 days. This was a peer-review challenge, with the best business plans being selected as good models for the retails units to leverage for their respective enterprises. This way, Steve Miller found an efficient mechanism to bring the disconnected frontline units to speed in the business front and empower them to make pertinent changes based on the market environment, customer needs and business opportunities. In short, these retail units would start functioning as independent businesses (with only broad guidance) with an entrepreneurial and innovative strategy.
Leadership: Redefined
Steve Miller exhibited characteristics that some may term “unconventional” for a typical CEO/Director of big organizations. While CEOs and senior management executives are increasingly caught up with board meetings, press debriefs, all-hands meetings, etc, Steve Miller found it important to connect with the front-line employees who shared a better picture about the state of business and customer needs. By connecting with these employees, Steve Miller was able to break complex governance barriers that impede a sense of transparency between the executive management and the rest of the organization. Further, by establishing a close connection with the frontline employees, Steve Miller was able to reaffirm that it was critical for these frontline business units to leverage innovative strategies to run their respective businesses and convince these employees that they had the potential to run their businesses just the way a senior management executive would run an organization.
Miller acknowledged that empowering the frontline employees with higher responsibilities and power served better for the organization than allowing the executive management to wrestle for all the powers and decision-making strategies. Part of this involved, moving from a “holier-than-thou-know-it-all” attitude towards more of a guiding force and a teacher style of leadership strategy. Steve Miller had to relinquish certain responsibilities and transition them to the frontline, because the mechanism seemed to be a better growth driver for the organization. To achieve this transition, Steve Miller took up the role of an active mentor and guiding force to ensure the frontline was equipped with the necessary capabilities and expertise to handle the transition. This leadership attribute is noteworthy. It is not only important for effective leaders to take charge and deliver, but also necessary to acknowledge leadership potential in the lower ranks and let go of important responsibilities.
Closing Notes
From an overall perspective, it was interesting to read about large scale change management strategies and their implementation for a large organization like Royal Dutch/Shell. I was particularly impressed by Steve Miller’s ability to recognize the power of the people and devise strategies to identify and develop leadership potential in the front-line. Certainly, what this has established is an ongoing mechanism that will serve as a significant growth driver for the organization in future.
References
“Grassroots Leadership – Royal Dutch/Shell” : http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/14/grassroots.html
“Turning around an Ailing IT Organization”: http://www.cio.com/article/5212/Turning_Around_an_Ailing_IT_Organization/1
“New Face of Leadership”: http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2001/05/shell_miller.html
How to Give Feedback – Fast Company – Annie Wolf Mendoza
Summary
There is nothing worse than handing over a paper or a project I’ve worked hard on to someone for feedback, only to get it back with a little note, saying ‘Great Work!’ and a smiley face. This is especially frustrating when I know it could be improved, but I just don’t know how to go about making the necessary improvements. Seth Godin, author of the article, How to Give Feedback, agrees, and provides four suggestions for providing stellar feedback.
The first suggestion is to provide analysis as opposed to your opinion. In other words, think about the paper or project or whatever you are analyzing, from the perspective of its intended audience. Leave out your own preferences. If one of your classmates asks you to give her feedback about a paper she wrote on the benefits of communism and you are against communism, analyze the strength of her arguments in the paper and leave out your personal opinions regarding the subject. After all, her intended audience is one that wants to understand or needs to be persuaded of the benefits of communism.
Suggestion two is to consider your timing. Base your feedback on the phase of the project. If someone asks you to review the first draft of a document that will be worked on over a longer period of time, don’t focus on minor details like spelling or punctuation; those things can be addressed in later drafts. Pay attention to the overall piece and provide feedback that will have the best impact on the final product. Timing is also important if you are thinking of making major changes to a project. If one of your team members has been working for months on a plan to build a new building and she is scheduled to present the plan tomorrow, the time to make major changes, like relocating the building, was a long time ago.
The third recommendation is to say something nice, if you have something nice to say. Godin argues that saying nice things about the project isn’t necessarily sugarcoating (if you are being honest). Beginning a feedback session with a compliment earns the trust of the person seeking your feedback and makes it more likely that your feedback will actually be put to use. Also, providing a sincere compliment makes it more likely that your feedback will be requested in the future.
The final suggestion is to always provide feedback. Even if you don’t feel you can provide the best analysis, you can provide some analysis and you might make observations that the person seeking your feedback hadn’t thought of. You might even say something that gives them a totally new idea and leads their project a way they hadn’t considered before.
Comments and Analysis
First, I really enjoyed reading this article. To be completely honest when I saw it, at first glance, I thought, how silly, someone took the time to write about giving feedback, but the more I thought about all the poor feedback I have received, the more I realized what a valuable article this is. His tips are really simple, but I believe they can make a significant impact on the quality of feedback. They have made me think about how I will change the way I provide feedback. I am notorious for picking out all the little punctuation and grammar errors, which might be okay, because those are important, but I will definitely look beyond those and do my best to provide some kind of analysis.
One thing that I really thought about while reading this was the responsibility of the person seeking feedback. I believe that person has the duty to be very specific about what kind of feedback he or she is seeking. I will explain myself using an example. I was recently part of an audience where a woman presented a paper she was working on and asked the audience to provide her with some feedback. She made her presentation and then opened it up for comments from the audience. She didn’t specify what kinds of suggestions she was looking for; she simply stated she wanted recommendations for improvement and that the audience could say anything they thought. The topic of the paper was not well received by most of the audience and they expressed their opinions openly. There was not much analysis going on, I must admit, but there were a couple of valuable suggestions. Some audience members used harsher language than others and as she listened the presenter became more and more frustrated as well as defensive. By the end of the presentation she was clearly frustrated, and I believe she felt hurt. The audience was annoyed with the way she had behaved. The whole thing had been a big mess and, I would argue, a waste of everyone’s time. The audience members hadn’t given the presenter what she needed; good analysis. But, I would argue that the presenter hadn’t given the audience what they needed; a clear explanation of what kind of suggestions she was looking for. I think the person seeking feedback has some degree of responsibility to limit or direct the way she or he wants the feedback session to go. If the door is opened for a free-for-all at the beginning, feedback providers are going come up with recommendations across the board. If the presenter asks for those providing feedback to focus on certain aspects of the paper, she or he would find that better feedback would be provided.
Related Articles
New Rules for When to Provide Feedback. By: Brandt, John R.. Industry Week/IW, Oct2007, Vol. 256 Issue 10, p56-56, 1p; (AN 26915782)
Effective Criticism Made Easy. By: Baron, Robert A.. Receivables Report for America's Health Care Financial Managers, Jul2007, Vol. 22 Issue 7, p9-11, 3p; (AN 25729966)
A Back-to-Basics Approach to Promote Meaningful Feedback. Compensation & Benefits for Law Offices, Mar2007, Vol. 7 Issue 3, p3-4, 2p; (AN 24261249)
Giving feedback gets results The New Zealand Herald, May 2, 2007 Wednesday, EMPLOYMENT; General, 1451 words
Constructive criticism: It's one of those things that nobody likes. But if it's delivered - and received - in the right manner, it's information designed to improve your performance. So everyone, take a deep breath The Gazette (Montreal), December 3, 2005 Saturday, WORKING; Pg. B5, 769 words, STEPHANIE WHITTAKER, Freelance
Feedback vital to good learning The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand), May 22, 2007 Tuesday, ADVERTISING; SUPPLEMENT; ADVERTISING FEATURE; Pg. 3, 252 words, MILNE Jonathan
There is nothing worse than handing over a paper or a project I’ve worked hard on to someone for feedback, only to get it back with a little note, saying ‘Great Work!’ and a smiley face. This is especially frustrating when I know it could be improved, but I just don’t know how to go about making the necessary improvements. Seth Godin, author of the article, How to Give Feedback, agrees, and provides four suggestions for providing stellar feedback.
The first suggestion is to provide analysis as opposed to your opinion. In other words, think about the paper or project or whatever you are analyzing, from the perspective of its intended audience. Leave out your own preferences. If one of your classmates asks you to give her feedback about a paper she wrote on the benefits of communism and you are against communism, analyze the strength of her arguments in the paper and leave out your personal opinions regarding the subject. After all, her intended audience is one that wants to understand or needs to be persuaded of the benefits of communism.
Suggestion two is to consider your timing. Base your feedback on the phase of the project. If someone asks you to review the first draft of a document that will be worked on over a longer period of time, don’t focus on minor details like spelling or punctuation; those things can be addressed in later drafts. Pay attention to the overall piece and provide feedback that will have the best impact on the final product. Timing is also important if you are thinking of making major changes to a project. If one of your team members has been working for months on a plan to build a new building and she is scheduled to present the plan tomorrow, the time to make major changes, like relocating the building, was a long time ago.
The third recommendation is to say something nice, if you have something nice to say. Godin argues that saying nice things about the project isn’t necessarily sugarcoating (if you are being honest). Beginning a feedback session with a compliment earns the trust of the person seeking your feedback and makes it more likely that your feedback will actually be put to use. Also, providing a sincere compliment makes it more likely that your feedback will be requested in the future.
The final suggestion is to always provide feedback. Even if you don’t feel you can provide the best analysis, you can provide some analysis and you might make observations that the person seeking your feedback hadn’t thought of. You might even say something that gives them a totally new idea and leads their project a way they hadn’t considered before.
Comments and Analysis
First, I really enjoyed reading this article. To be completely honest when I saw it, at first glance, I thought, how silly, someone took the time to write about giving feedback, but the more I thought about all the poor feedback I have received, the more I realized what a valuable article this is. His tips are really simple, but I believe they can make a significant impact on the quality of feedback. They have made me think about how I will change the way I provide feedback. I am notorious for picking out all the little punctuation and grammar errors, which might be okay, because those are important, but I will definitely look beyond those and do my best to provide some kind of analysis.
One thing that I really thought about while reading this was the responsibility of the person seeking feedback. I believe that person has the duty to be very specific about what kind of feedback he or she is seeking. I will explain myself using an example. I was recently part of an audience where a woman presented a paper she was working on and asked the audience to provide her with some feedback. She made her presentation and then opened it up for comments from the audience. She didn’t specify what kinds of suggestions she was looking for; she simply stated she wanted recommendations for improvement and that the audience could say anything they thought. The topic of the paper was not well received by most of the audience and they expressed their opinions openly. There was not much analysis going on, I must admit, but there were a couple of valuable suggestions. Some audience members used harsher language than others and as she listened the presenter became more and more frustrated as well as defensive. By the end of the presentation she was clearly frustrated, and I believe she felt hurt. The audience was annoyed with the way she had behaved. The whole thing had been a big mess and, I would argue, a waste of everyone’s time. The audience members hadn’t given the presenter what she needed; good analysis. But, I would argue that the presenter hadn’t given the audience what they needed; a clear explanation of what kind of suggestions she was looking for. I think the person seeking feedback has some degree of responsibility to limit or direct the way she or he wants the feedback session to go. If the door is opened for a free-for-all at the beginning, feedback providers are going come up with recommendations across the board. If the presenter asks for those providing feedback to focus on certain aspects of the paper, she or he would find that better feedback would be provided.
Related Articles
New Rules for When to Provide Feedback. By: Brandt, John R.. Industry Week/IW, Oct2007, Vol. 256 Issue 10, p56-56, 1p; (AN 26915782)
Effective Criticism Made Easy. By: Baron, Robert A.. Receivables Report for America's Health Care Financial Managers, Jul2007, Vol. 22 Issue 7, p9-11, 3p; (AN 25729966)
A Back-to-Basics Approach to Promote Meaningful Feedback. Compensation & Benefits for Law Offices, Mar2007, Vol. 7 Issue 3, p3-4, 2p; (AN 24261249)
Giving feedback gets results The New Zealand Herald, May 2, 2007 Wednesday, EMPLOYMENT; General, 1451 words
Constructive criticism: It's one of those things that nobody likes. But if it's delivered - and received - in the right manner, it's information designed to improve your performance. So everyone, take a deep breath The Gazette (Montreal), December 3, 2005 Saturday, WORKING; Pg. B5, 769 words, STEPHANIE WHITTAKER, Freelance
Feedback vital to good learning The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand), May 22, 2007 Tuesday, ADVERTISING; SUPPLEMENT; ADVERTISING FEATURE; Pg. 3, 252 words, MILNE Jonathan
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Permatemps Contretemps - Fast Company - Daylen Thane
I start this article review by defining the words in the title: Permatemps is a word used to describe contract workers that stay at a company for longer than a year, and Contretemps means an inopportune situation or event, it can also mean “against time”. In this article, the author talks about the situation of Permatemps at Microsoft, but mostly, he focuses on their unhappiness.
Ron Lieber starts the article by talking about how Microsoft got in trouble with the IRS in 1989 because they employed independent contractors for a long period of time and didn’t withhold their taxes. This situation led Microsoft to ask the temporary workers to sign-up with temp agencies, and those agencies to withhold the taxes.
Microsoft thought that it had the right to employ contract workers as long as the contractors knew that their employment didn’t include benefits, nor were they guaranteed to a full-time offer after their contract assignment expired. Contractors would stay with Microsoft for a long time hoping that their contract would become a full time status, but this didn’t happen in many cases. As a result, their temp status became a constant unhappiness as they saw their coworkers (that were FTEs) get benefits and participation in company’s activities where they couldn’t join.
Furthermore, a group of permatemps started a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft, claiming that they worked at the company for years and didn’t receive the benefits that full time employees get. Because of this, Microsoft started a new policy establishing that after a contract worker works for a year, she/he must take 100 days off before starting on another assignment. On this matter, Ron says that “although Microsoft has grown and prospered [this article was written in July of 2000] the lawsuit has generated lots of bad publicity and has lowered the morale dramatically among the company’s temps, who have at times made up as much as 25% of Microsoft’s Seattle area-workforce. The temps may well end up as the beneficiaries of a lawsuit that awards them millions of dollars, but a judgment in their favor will have consequences too. Even if the workers do win the case, free agents may find themselves constrained in their ability to work on their own terms, and permatemps may still not land the full-time jobs that they want. Meanwhile, the courts have taken over the role of chief policy maker on matters that could not be settled by the talent market and by human-resources strategists.”
To further support his position, Ron interviews an “unwillingly full-time employee, an unwillingly permatemp, two aspiring permatemp union organizers, a permatemp agency creator, and the head of the temp workers at Microsoft.” Here are their sides of the story:
Silvia Moestl: was a full time employee at Microsoft who felt she wasn’t getting paid as much as her permatemp colleagues even though her skill set matched and even surpassed theirs. For her, the stock options she received (permatemps didn’t get stock options) wasn’t enough to keep her around as a FTE; so in the fall of 1995 she left Microsoft to become a free agent.
For the next four years she took different contract projects at Microsoft, and greatly increased her skill set. This was her opinion about the permatemps controversy: “Just because someone wants a full-time job doesn’t mean that person is going to get one. The market has ways of regulating situations like this. There are job opportunities elsewhere, and if people are unhappy, they should take advantage of those opportunities.”
The permatemp lawsuit had a strong impact on Silvia’s life after Microsoft started a new policy where contract workers/free agents have to take a 100 days break after working on a project for a year. Moestl said that “some large companies are trying to avoid hiring any contractors at all. And there are others who don’t want to risk giving a contractor longer projects to work on, because they’re afraid that they might be sued if contractors think that they’re doing full-time work for them. All of it directly affects my bottom line and my ability to choose the way that I want to work.”
Barbara Judd: worked for two years as a temporary worker making a financial software product for Microsoft. During the interview, she said: “The company made it clear to us that there were not guarantees that the project would succeed. But my take on temp work has always been that it’s a good way to prove yourself to an employer. Plus, it was a chance to work on a piece of software from the ground up. It’s always more exciting to build than it is to fix. I saw that job as a chance for me to be a pioneer.”
After a year working on this project, Barbara attended a meeting of the Institute of Management Accountants in Seattle and heard Greg Maffei speak. In those times, Greg was the chief financial officer at Microsoft, and when an audience member asked for his opinion on permatemps, he said: “we are very tough in hiring [full-time workers] in terms of standards, but we aren’t as tough on temps. So you find the quality of temps is not as good as the quality of the full time people.” This was very hard for Barbara to hear, and she felt personally attacked.
Not only were the opinions of high-ranked executives hurtful, but she also had to follow a series of rules that came with her temp status. For example, she was “not allowed to play on the Microsoft ball fields, get a free membership to a local gym, or join any of the employee-affinity groups. Badges that the company issues to temps are orange, rather than blue. And, on the Microsoft email system, an “A” is printed before the name of temps who are assigned through local staffing agencies – a designation that temps say makes their email opinions easier to dismiss. There’s more: temps can’t buy discounted software at the company store. In fact, they can’t buy it at all, for any price, even if they wrote the instructions inside the box.”
After two years of working at Microsoft, Barbara was given 48 hours to gather her belongings and leave the company when her project got canceled. For Microsoft, her job was never permanent, so she didn’t deserve full-time employees’ status and benefits.
Marcus Courtney and Mike Blain: are the founders of Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WashTech: http://www.washtech.org/). By creating this organization they attempted to “organize and represent the interests of workers who don’t want to be employees of any one company, or who are contract workers unable to secure a full-time position.” Ron talks in the article about the struggles the organization had to face to get members to join in. Courtney said during the interview: “those who are most unhappy tend to be temps who want full-time jobs but can’t get them, and those same temps are least likely to make waves and jeopardize their chances of getting those full-time jobs. Meanwhile, true temps are generally not joiners by nature. They have a strong sense of individual spirit, and none of them has ever encountered and organization like ours. The word ‘union’ comes with a certain amount of baggage for white-collar workers in general, and for individualist workers, in particular. So we try to get people interested in the issues that we’re working on without using that term to describe what we do.”
Peg Cheirrett: was the owner of WASSER Inc., a Seattle-based temp agency. She felt that Microsoft was who made her firm successful and profitable. “According to Cheirrett, 51, the true free agents who worked through WASSER enjoyed their work at Microsoft but often felt conflicted. ‘I recall one conversation with someone who was particularly mistrustful to me,’ she said. ‘The whole reason that he had gone independent in the first place was because he felt that agencies were exploitative and that they didn’t give anything back to workers. Working through an agency in order to do work for Microsoft, to him, was a loss of control, a loss of prestige.’”
Cheirrett sold her company in 1997, and she started “researching cutting-edge human resources policies and studying the Hollywood model of deploying independent professionals.” She said: “I can’t believe that I haven’t looked into this until now. That model could serve as an example of what to do in the tech world.”
Sharon Decker: was the director of contingent staffing when the article was written. “To Decker, Microsoft’s solution of sending its temps to staffing agencies was neither a grand strategy nor a nefarious plot. It was just a way of going about the company’s business. ‘To my knowledge, there was no ‘big decision’ where people sat in a room and said, ‘this is how we are going to staff the company, and this is why we’re going to do it.’ We’ve just always wanted to maintain flexibility and to avoid big fluctuations in the number of full-time workers.’”
Decker tried her best to change the company’s culture with respect to temp workers. However, there were some things she could not change, for example, “policies that would exclude temps from bowling nights or forbid them from buying software at the company store, those were generally set by Microsoft’s lawyers specifically to enable the courts to see a clear line between full-time employees and contract workers.”
Furthermore, Sharon was convinced that the company deserves more credit than what it gets for trying to please everyone: “we haven’t done a good enough job of telling people what we’re looking for and what we’re trying to do. We want temps to be in temporary assignments, and if it turns out that those assignments require long-term work, then we want to make those jobs permanent. We want people to choose to work for us and to like us – no matter what sort of career they’re thinking about. We’d like to think that we can offer the best of both worlds.”
My thoughts & opinion about this article:
From reading this article I highly believe that the author was biased against Microsoft hiring temps workers. I think his argument would have been stronger and more believable if he would have interview at least one permatemp who was happy (or at least more optimistic) with his work situation. It seems to me that most of the temp employees are unhappy because they aren’t hired as full time employees, so Microsoft can’t be that bad of a company to work for if they want to be FTEs so badly. Again, I am biased because I do believe that Microsoft is great (couldn’t be better actually) to its employees, as I experience it first hand (when it comes to benefits and employees activities and opportunities). I am not entirely sure my opinion is very valid because I am not objective; however, there are some points I’d like to make:
During the intro, the author talks about the permatemps winning millions of dollars in the lawsuit, but still losing since they still may not land the full-time jobs that they want. I think if they win millions of dollars, they probably have plenty of time and money to educate themselves further and develop the skill set needed to obtain that full-time job. It is very hard to feel sad for them after they won millions of dollars in a lawsuit that most likely ended up screwing hundreds of temp workers; since due to the lawsuit Microsoft was forced to change its rules regarding contractors.
When I read what Barbara said about how contract workers benefits are pretty much non-existent compared to FTEs, my first thought was: “but all those rules came after Microsoft got sued, and their lawyers had to establish these rules to differentiate FTEs from temps.”
I feel bad for the contract employees who really want a full-time position with Microsoft. It must be really hard to be treated as if you are not part of the company you are helping succeed; but they know about all these rules and differences before they join as temp workers, and they should be tough enough to handle them before they agree to join as a contractor. If they can’t handle them, their best course of action is to probably work on the skill set needed for them to join the company as full-time employees.
Additional Reading:
“Microsoft battles Permatemp Issue” by Jennifer Laabs on Workforce News Angle: www.workforceonline.com
“Microsoft: separate and unequal treatment of its employees” by Lynne Bernabei on Journal of Employment Discrimination Law
“Microsoft gets tough with permatemps” by Paul Sweeny on Treasury and Risk Management: www.treasuryandrisk.com
“The new rules at work” by Doug Isenberg on Internet World: www.internetworld.com
“Permatemps want more, more, more” by Margaret Price on Treasury and Risk Management: www.treasuryandrisk.com
“Microsoft `Permatemp' Claims Hit a New Delay” by Brier Dudley on Tribune Business News.
“Law Firm of Bendich, Stobaugh, and Strong Announces Microsoft Permatemp Settlement” PR Newswire. New York, Dec 12, 2000.
Ron Lieber starts the article by talking about how Microsoft got in trouble with the IRS in 1989 because they employed independent contractors for a long period of time and didn’t withhold their taxes. This situation led Microsoft to ask the temporary workers to sign-up with temp agencies, and those agencies to withhold the taxes.
Microsoft thought that it had the right to employ contract workers as long as the contractors knew that their employment didn’t include benefits, nor were they guaranteed to a full-time offer after their contract assignment expired. Contractors would stay with Microsoft for a long time hoping that their contract would become a full time status, but this didn’t happen in many cases. As a result, their temp status became a constant unhappiness as they saw their coworkers (that were FTEs) get benefits and participation in company’s activities where they couldn’t join.
Furthermore, a group of permatemps started a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft, claiming that they worked at the company for years and didn’t receive the benefits that full time employees get. Because of this, Microsoft started a new policy establishing that after a contract worker works for a year, she/he must take 100 days off before starting on another assignment. On this matter, Ron says that “although Microsoft has grown and prospered [this article was written in July of 2000] the lawsuit has generated lots of bad publicity and has lowered the morale dramatically among the company’s temps, who have at times made up as much as 25% of Microsoft’s Seattle area-workforce. The temps may well end up as the beneficiaries of a lawsuit that awards them millions of dollars, but a judgment in their favor will have consequences too. Even if the workers do win the case, free agents may find themselves constrained in their ability to work on their own terms, and permatemps may still not land the full-time jobs that they want. Meanwhile, the courts have taken over the role of chief policy maker on matters that could not be settled by the talent market and by human-resources strategists.”
To further support his position, Ron interviews an “unwillingly full-time employee, an unwillingly permatemp, two aspiring permatemp union organizers, a permatemp agency creator, and the head of the temp workers at Microsoft.” Here are their sides of the story:
Silvia Moestl: was a full time employee at Microsoft who felt she wasn’t getting paid as much as her permatemp colleagues even though her skill set matched and even surpassed theirs. For her, the stock options she received (permatemps didn’t get stock options) wasn’t enough to keep her around as a FTE; so in the fall of 1995 she left Microsoft to become a free agent.
For the next four years she took different contract projects at Microsoft, and greatly increased her skill set. This was her opinion about the permatemps controversy: “Just because someone wants a full-time job doesn’t mean that person is going to get one. The market has ways of regulating situations like this. There are job opportunities elsewhere, and if people are unhappy, they should take advantage of those opportunities.”
The permatemp lawsuit had a strong impact on Silvia’s life after Microsoft started a new policy where contract workers/free agents have to take a 100 days break after working on a project for a year. Moestl said that “some large companies are trying to avoid hiring any contractors at all. And there are others who don’t want to risk giving a contractor longer projects to work on, because they’re afraid that they might be sued if contractors think that they’re doing full-time work for them. All of it directly affects my bottom line and my ability to choose the way that I want to work.”
Barbara Judd: worked for two years as a temporary worker making a financial software product for Microsoft. During the interview, she said: “The company made it clear to us that there were not guarantees that the project would succeed. But my take on temp work has always been that it’s a good way to prove yourself to an employer. Plus, it was a chance to work on a piece of software from the ground up. It’s always more exciting to build than it is to fix. I saw that job as a chance for me to be a pioneer.”
After a year working on this project, Barbara attended a meeting of the Institute of Management Accountants in Seattle and heard Greg Maffei speak. In those times, Greg was the chief financial officer at Microsoft, and when an audience member asked for his opinion on permatemps, he said: “we are very tough in hiring [full-time workers] in terms of standards, but we aren’t as tough on temps. So you find the quality of temps is not as good as the quality of the full time people.” This was very hard for Barbara to hear, and she felt personally attacked.
Not only were the opinions of high-ranked executives hurtful, but she also had to follow a series of rules that came with her temp status. For example, she was “not allowed to play on the Microsoft ball fields, get a free membership to a local gym, or join any of the employee-affinity groups. Badges that the company issues to temps are orange, rather than blue. And, on the Microsoft email system, an “A” is printed before the name of temps who are assigned through local staffing agencies – a designation that temps say makes their email opinions easier to dismiss. There’s more: temps can’t buy discounted software at the company store. In fact, they can’t buy it at all, for any price, even if they wrote the instructions inside the box.”
After two years of working at Microsoft, Barbara was given 48 hours to gather her belongings and leave the company when her project got canceled. For Microsoft, her job was never permanent, so she didn’t deserve full-time employees’ status and benefits.
Marcus Courtney and Mike Blain: are the founders of Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WashTech: http://www.washtech.org/). By creating this organization they attempted to “organize and represent the interests of workers who don’t want to be employees of any one company, or who are contract workers unable to secure a full-time position.” Ron talks in the article about the struggles the organization had to face to get members to join in. Courtney said during the interview: “those who are most unhappy tend to be temps who want full-time jobs but can’t get them, and those same temps are least likely to make waves and jeopardize their chances of getting those full-time jobs. Meanwhile, true temps are generally not joiners by nature. They have a strong sense of individual spirit, and none of them has ever encountered and organization like ours. The word ‘union’ comes with a certain amount of baggage for white-collar workers in general, and for individualist workers, in particular. So we try to get people interested in the issues that we’re working on without using that term to describe what we do.”
Peg Cheirrett: was the owner of WASSER Inc., a Seattle-based temp agency. She felt that Microsoft was who made her firm successful and profitable. “According to Cheirrett, 51, the true free agents who worked through WASSER enjoyed their work at Microsoft but often felt conflicted. ‘I recall one conversation with someone who was particularly mistrustful to me,’ she said. ‘The whole reason that he had gone independent in the first place was because he felt that agencies were exploitative and that they didn’t give anything back to workers. Working through an agency in order to do work for Microsoft, to him, was a loss of control, a loss of prestige.’”
Cheirrett sold her company in 1997, and she started “researching cutting-edge human resources policies and studying the Hollywood model of deploying independent professionals.” She said: “I can’t believe that I haven’t looked into this until now. That model could serve as an example of what to do in the tech world.”
Sharon Decker: was the director of contingent staffing when the article was written. “To Decker, Microsoft’s solution of sending its temps to staffing agencies was neither a grand strategy nor a nefarious plot. It was just a way of going about the company’s business. ‘To my knowledge, there was no ‘big decision’ where people sat in a room and said, ‘this is how we are going to staff the company, and this is why we’re going to do it.’ We’ve just always wanted to maintain flexibility and to avoid big fluctuations in the number of full-time workers.’”
Decker tried her best to change the company’s culture with respect to temp workers. However, there were some things she could not change, for example, “policies that would exclude temps from bowling nights or forbid them from buying software at the company store, those were generally set by Microsoft’s lawyers specifically to enable the courts to see a clear line between full-time employees and contract workers.”
Furthermore, Sharon was convinced that the company deserves more credit than what it gets for trying to please everyone: “we haven’t done a good enough job of telling people what we’re looking for and what we’re trying to do. We want temps to be in temporary assignments, and if it turns out that those assignments require long-term work, then we want to make those jobs permanent. We want people to choose to work for us and to like us – no matter what sort of career they’re thinking about. We’d like to think that we can offer the best of both worlds.”
My thoughts & opinion about this article:
From reading this article I highly believe that the author was biased against Microsoft hiring temps workers. I think his argument would have been stronger and more believable if he would have interview at least one permatemp who was happy (or at least more optimistic) with his work situation. It seems to me that most of the temp employees are unhappy because they aren’t hired as full time employees, so Microsoft can’t be that bad of a company to work for if they want to be FTEs so badly. Again, I am biased because I do believe that Microsoft is great (couldn’t be better actually) to its employees, as I experience it first hand (when it comes to benefits and employees activities and opportunities). I am not entirely sure my opinion is very valid because I am not objective; however, there are some points I’d like to make:
During the intro, the author talks about the permatemps winning millions of dollars in the lawsuit, but still losing since they still may not land the full-time jobs that they want. I think if they win millions of dollars, they probably have plenty of time and money to educate themselves further and develop the skill set needed to obtain that full-time job. It is very hard to feel sad for them after they won millions of dollars in a lawsuit that most likely ended up screwing hundreds of temp workers; since due to the lawsuit Microsoft was forced to change its rules regarding contractors.
When I read what Barbara said about how contract workers benefits are pretty much non-existent compared to FTEs, my first thought was: “but all those rules came after Microsoft got sued, and their lawyers had to establish these rules to differentiate FTEs from temps.”
I feel bad for the contract employees who really want a full-time position with Microsoft. It must be really hard to be treated as if you are not part of the company you are helping succeed; but they know about all these rules and differences before they join as temp workers, and they should be tough enough to handle them before they agree to join as a contractor. If they can’t handle them, their best course of action is to probably work on the skill set needed for them to join the company as full-time employees.
Additional Reading:
“Microsoft battles Permatemp Issue” by Jennifer Laabs on Workforce News Angle: www.workforceonline.com
“Microsoft: separate and unequal treatment of its employees” by Lynne Bernabei on Journal of Employment Discrimination Law
“Microsoft gets tough with permatemps” by Paul Sweeny on Treasury and Risk Management: www.treasuryandrisk.com
“The new rules at work” by Doug Isenberg on Internet World: www.internetworld.com
“Permatemps want more, more, more” by Margaret Price on Treasury and Risk Management: www.treasuryandrisk.com
“Microsoft `Permatemp' Claims Hit a New Delay” by Brier Dudley on Tribune Business News.
“Law Firm of Bendich, Stobaugh, and Strong Announces Microsoft Permatemp Settlement” PR Newswire. New York, Dec 12, 2000.
Gospels of Failure – Fast Company – Sowjanya Kodidala
9/11 Commission Report is the official report of the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was prepared by the National Commission on terrorist attacks on the United States. In this article author gives a very good insight into commission’s findings of the deep institutional failures and how our short-term earnings and publicity blocks us to learn from our blunders. Commission reports that the system was blinking red prior to the 9/11 disaster. According to the author, one of the following three factors was the greatest culprit in ignoring, trapping, or suppressing crucial warning signs i.e. imagination, culture, or communication. These factors made those blinking red signals hard to see.
Gospel of failure #1: Lack of Imagination
Institutionalizing Disruptive Intelligence
The 9/11 commission talks about breathtaking illustration of how, even seven days before 9/11 disaster, government leaders still were underestimating the severity of the Al Qaeda posed. Richard Clarke, former counterterrorist coordinator sent a letter to Condoleezza Rice in which he wrote “Are we serious about dealing with the al Qaeda [sic] threat? . . . Is al Qaeda a big deal?" The 9/11 commission calls this lack of imagination “the most important failure” of leaders in the September 11 tragedy. According to the commission, “cultural asymmetry” had taken hold, blinding leaders to the gravity of the danger and id the reason for failure of imagination. Commission therefore says it is crucial to find a way of routinizing the exercise of imagination. Author argues that it sounds more a lot like the concept of disruptive innovation.
The commission’s report proposes a process that provides a framework for imagining multiple potential failures. The previously used methods were not used consistently. The counterterrorist Center did not perform “red team” analysis from the enemy’s perspective that likely would have predicted the use of air planes in suicide attacks. Nor did it develop indicators for monitoring this kind of attack—or potential defenses against it.
Trying to imagine future scenarios without the right framework or expertise would be confusing. Everyone in the organization uses scenario planning; leaders tend to focus on probable rather than the disruptive. When you ask the question “In every situation, tell me what will happen?” it forces intelligence community to come either the most likely scenario. To get the top management to listen to more than one outcome, start by presenting the most credible outcome first. If you don’t give them that scenario first, they will reject everything they hear the scenario they already believe in. Peter Schwartz says.
Karl Weick, a professor of University of Michigan Business School talks about another manageable approach – is to think backward from a potential outcome, which will surface the events that could create it. He suggests using the future perfect tense as a simple but disciplined way of imagining what could happen. “It anchors you in the future.”
I think it’s impossible to imagine all possible scenarios before an event occurs. Having said that, I agree with Gorelick, the former 9/11 commissioner to some extent in the sense that it doesn’t harm if we put our systems in place that allow the imagination that’s naturally occurring to actually breakthrough. This will definitely help us quite a bit, but we have to understand the issues that could arise due to over imagination. There could be too many scenarios to pursue, but there are always limited resources in terms of time and people. Also, if one believes that a particular scenario is important, then that person has to convince others and get them to agree; and that is where the difficulty is.
Gospel of failure #2: Proud Culture
Disturbing the perfect place
The article mentions about NASA and some of the failures caused due to NASA. An organization can fail however elaborate the system may be. NASA has failed in a few instances especially in the 1960’s. During the Apollo era, NASA came close to being the best organization. This success sometimes reinforces lessons that become harmful over time. It viewed itself as a perfect place also led to a warped outlook on safety. This it has been the sole problem and the honest pride going toward self confidence, over confidence, complacency, and arrogance. It is deeply troubled and it needs new ways of thinking and new ways of coming to terms with social, economic and political developments/changes. Leaders often create a culture and it therefore becomes their sole responsibility to change it.
NASA is rated low on perceived organizational support, upward communication, less than desired on justice, management credibility, and safety climate. It is also rated low on use of rigorous, informed judgment and assessments of risk as basis for safety decision making. NASA is putting out its efforts in changing the current culture plan and it can be concluded that if they put in their best efforts, it might be successful in changing the culture. There is more potential to learn from a failure. The author still focuses on failure but doesn’t concentrate as how can he turn them to successes.
Gospel of failure #3: Lack of proper communication
Dissolving Environments of Separation
The New York Times products are stories, its suppliers and diverse voices, and its mission is to ferret out the truth. So it’s hard to miss the irony spelled out by authors of the report investigating the Blair Scandal. “ A failure to communicate – to tell other editors what some people in the newsroom knew – emerges as the single most consistent cause, after Jason Blair’s own behavior, of the catastrophe. “The newsroom of THE New York Times, the report authors write, was “an environment of separation” The imperious, hard driving leadership of executive editor Howell Raines, a self declared “change agent” bent on outdoing other papers, and have a recipe for communication disaster. Raines reputation for playing favorites and pushing his idea of what should be in the paper only worsened the situation.
Under Raines’s leadership, communication also deteriorated in an increasingly centralized hierarchy. Department heads had been crucial communication links. They were the key to the information flow between frontline editors and top management. But as much of their power shifted upward, these key links in the communication chain suffered a loss of authority. With that, went a decline of communication.
The Times’ problems were bigger than just Raines. Rather, they appeal for strengthening the social network at the Times in order to share information more effectively. The members are requested more informal brainstorming among reporters and editors in different departments, more cross- departmental meetings. These seem like simple things, but they are actually tough to pull off. “I think people often underestimate the amount of resourcefulness that’s required to proactively shape new communication patterns,” says Niko Canner.
“Do people understand the way to communicate information so that they will value from an exchange with a conversational partner they’re not used to talking with? Can they build those new behaviors into the day to day of how they do their work?
In the face of failure, however, leaders must embrace the unconventional. They have to allow communications at the periphery. They must shape cultures that are open both to the possibility of failure and to need to learn when problems do occur.
I agree with the author on the third gospel of failure i.e. lack of communication because it is really difficult for people to work together in modern organizations in harmony because of the fact that people come with different backgrounds, skills, values, cultures, languages and age differences.
If all these are taken into consideration, then the best place for a human to be alive is home.
Thus I conclude by saying, though the author focused on the things that failed, but he is missing a valuable point that "Failures are the stepping stone for successes" and also that no-one in the world can succeed in one shot. It’s always easy to say what should not have been done than to say what needs to be done.
References
Koch, Christopher; “The Rules of Change Management,” September 15, 2006, CIO.com
1. Wikipedia, October 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
2. John M.Logsdon, “The Devil Is In The Culture NASA, The Columbia Accident, And ITS Aftermath” http://www.risksociety.org.nz/conference2004/pdf/logsdondevil.pdf
Related articles
1. Donna J Bear, “If At First You Don’t Fail” http://www.amanet.org/LeadersEdge/editorial.cfm?Ed=415&BNKNAVID=8&nwsID=69&display=1
2. George Olsen, “A Failure To Communicate” March 30, 2001 http://www.alistapart.com/articles/failure
3. Eli Lilly: Productive Failure , “Fast Take : Culture”
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/91/gospels-fasttake2.html
4. Jena MCGregor “The Imagination Was There” February 2005 http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/91/gospels-qa.html
5. Dr. Michael Harris Bond, “Cross- Cultural Issues In Managing the Organization: The Case Of Hong Kong” http://www.cic.sfu.ca/forum/bond.html
6. John E Prescott, Stephen H. Miller, “Proven Strategies In Competitive Intelligence : Lessons from the Trenches ” http://books.google.com/books?id=9C73gea8E4MC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=institutionalizing+disruptive+intelligence&source=web&ots=c-i3qfXQRR&sig=G__ZxbRwoaf0hRT04U05AEbqKnA#PPA2,M1
Gospel of failure #1: Lack of Imagination
Institutionalizing Disruptive Intelligence
The 9/11 commission talks about breathtaking illustration of how, even seven days before 9/11 disaster, government leaders still were underestimating the severity of the Al Qaeda posed. Richard Clarke, former counterterrorist coordinator sent a letter to Condoleezza Rice in which he wrote “Are we serious about dealing with the al Qaeda [sic] threat? . . . Is al Qaeda a big deal?" The 9/11 commission calls this lack of imagination “the most important failure” of leaders in the September 11 tragedy. According to the commission, “cultural asymmetry” had taken hold, blinding leaders to the gravity of the danger and id the reason for failure of imagination. Commission therefore says it is crucial to find a way of routinizing the exercise of imagination. Author argues that it sounds more a lot like the concept of disruptive innovation.
The commission’s report proposes a process that provides a framework for imagining multiple potential failures. The previously used methods were not used consistently. The counterterrorist Center did not perform “red team” analysis from the enemy’s perspective that likely would have predicted the use of air planes in suicide attacks. Nor did it develop indicators for monitoring this kind of attack—or potential defenses against it.
Trying to imagine future scenarios without the right framework or expertise would be confusing. Everyone in the organization uses scenario planning; leaders tend to focus on probable rather than the disruptive. When you ask the question “In every situation, tell me what will happen?” it forces intelligence community to come either the most likely scenario. To get the top management to listen to more than one outcome, start by presenting the most credible outcome first. If you don’t give them that scenario first, they will reject everything they hear the scenario they already believe in. Peter Schwartz says.
Karl Weick, a professor of University of Michigan Business School talks about another manageable approach – is to think backward from a potential outcome, which will surface the events that could create it. He suggests using the future perfect tense as a simple but disciplined way of imagining what could happen. “It anchors you in the future.”
I think it’s impossible to imagine all possible scenarios before an event occurs. Having said that, I agree with Gorelick, the former 9/11 commissioner to some extent in the sense that it doesn’t harm if we put our systems in place that allow the imagination that’s naturally occurring to actually breakthrough. This will definitely help us quite a bit, but we have to understand the issues that could arise due to over imagination. There could be too many scenarios to pursue, but there are always limited resources in terms of time and people. Also, if one believes that a particular scenario is important, then that person has to convince others and get them to agree; and that is where the difficulty is.
Gospel of failure #2: Proud Culture
Disturbing the perfect place
The article mentions about NASA and some of the failures caused due to NASA. An organization can fail however elaborate the system may be. NASA has failed in a few instances especially in the 1960’s. During the Apollo era, NASA came close to being the best organization. This success sometimes reinforces lessons that become harmful over time. It viewed itself as a perfect place also led to a warped outlook on safety. This it has been the sole problem and the honest pride going toward self confidence, over confidence, complacency, and arrogance. It is deeply troubled and it needs new ways of thinking and new ways of coming to terms with social, economic and political developments/changes. Leaders often create a culture and it therefore becomes their sole responsibility to change it.
NASA is rated low on perceived organizational support, upward communication, less than desired on justice, management credibility, and safety climate. It is also rated low on use of rigorous, informed judgment and assessments of risk as basis for safety decision making. NASA is putting out its efforts in changing the current culture plan and it can be concluded that if they put in their best efforts, it might be successful in changing the culture. There is more potential to learn from a failure. The author still focuses on failure but doesn’t concentrate as how can he turn them to successes.
Gospel of failure #3: Lack of proper communication
Dissolving Environments of Separation
The New York Times products are stories, its suppliers and diverse voices, and its mission is to ferret out the truth. So it’s hard to miss the irony spelled out by authors of the report investigating the Blair Scandal. “ A failure to communicate – to tell other editors what some people in the newsroom knew – emerges as the single most consistent cause, after Jason Blair’s own behavior, of the catastrophe. “The newsroom of THE New York Times, the report authors write, was “an environment of separation” The imperious, hard driving leadership of executive editor Howell Raines, a self declared “change agent” bent on outdoing other papers, and have a recipe for communication disaster. Raines reputation for playing favorites and pushing his idea of what should be in the paper only worsened the situation.
Under Raines’s leadership, communication also deteriorated in an increasingly centralized hierarchy. Department heads had been crucial communication links. They were the key to the information flow between frontline editors and top management. But as much of their power shifted upward, these key links in the communication chain suffered a loss of authority. With that, went a decline of communication.
The Times’ problems were bigger than just Raines. Rather, they appeal for strengthening the social network at the Times in order to share information more effectively. The members are requested more informal brainstorming among reporters and editors in different departments, more cross- departmental meetings. These seem like simple things, but they are actually tough to pull off. “I think people often underestimate the amount of resourcefulness that’s required to proactively shape new communication patterns,” says Niko Canner.
“Do people understand the way to communicate information so that they will value from an exchange with a conversational partner they’re not used to talking with? Can they build those new behaviors into the day to day of how they do their work?
In the face of failure, however, leaders must embrace the unconventional. They have to allow communications at the periphery. They must shape cultures that are open both to the possibility of failure and to need to learn when problems do occur.
I agree with the author on the third gospel of failure i.e. lack of communication because it is really difficult for people to work together in modern organizations in harmony because of the fact that people come with different backgrounds, skills, values, cultures, languages and age differences.
If all these are taken into consideration, then the best place for a human to be alive is home.
Thus I conclude by saying, though the author focused on the things that failed, but he is missing a valuable point that "Failures are the stepping stone for successes" and also that no-one in the world can succeed in one shot. It’s always easy to say what should not have been done than to say what needs to be done.
References
Koch, Christopher; “The Rules of Change Management,” September 15, 2006, CIO.com
1. Wikipedia, October 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
2. John M.Logsdon, “The Devil Is In The Culture NASA, The Columbia Accident, And ITS Aftermath” http://www.risksociety.org.nz/conference2004/pdf/logsdondevil.pdf
Related articles
1. Donna J Bear, “If At First You Don’t Fail” http://www.amanet.org/LeadersEdge/editorial.cfm?Ed=415&BNKNAVID=8&nwsID=69&display=1
2. George Olsen, “A Failure To Communicate” March 30, 2001 http://www.alistapart.com/articles/failure
3. Eli Lilly: Productive Failure , “Fast Take : Culture”
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/91/gospels-fasttake2.html
4. Jena MCGregor “The Imagination Was There” February 2005 http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/91/gospels-qa.html
5. Dr. Michael Harris Bond, “Cross- Cultural Issues In Managing the Organization: The Case Of Hong Kong” http://www.cic.sfu.ca/forum/bond.html
6. John E Prescott, Stephen H. Miller, “Proven Strategies In Competitive Intelligence : Lessons from the Trenches ” http://books.google.com/books?id=9C73gea8E4MC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=institutionalizing+disruptive+intelligence&source=web&ots=c-i3qfXQRR&sig=G__ZxbRwoaf0hRT04U05AEbqKnA#PPA2,M1
Why We Buy? – Fast Company – M. Serkan Pektas
Synopsis
On August 15, 1998, when Apple first introduced a new all-in-one Mac computer, the iMac, what were the expectations, hopes, or dreams of Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive about reaction of the market? It was a very important milestone for their life, whether the new release was defined as successful or not. Apple had been in lost since 1993, and they needed a major turnover to stay competitive in the business. iMac has saved both its company and its creators.
This article is about interview notes with one of the champion of this major turnover: Jonathan Ive. Author mentioned about the effects and results of the release of iMac. Those are very important points, because iMac release has changed not only the fate of Apple, but also the future of the computer and information world. The point is here iMac has revealed that computers are made for helping people, so it has to proceed and look like that. Before iMac, beige computers with all hard-to-setup gadgets and wires had freaked people out for decades, because it is a geek device. According to company sources, during 1998-2000, 43% of the bestseller iMac’s sales were to new users - both first-time users and Windows’ migrants.[i] As author stated that;
“Buying an iMac makes you feel hopeful again. It is a revolution in a box.”
The distinctive aesthetics were easily spotted in public. The iMac was recognizable on television, in films and in print. This increased Apple’s brand awareness, and embedded the iMac into popular culture.[ii] Authors also gave remarkable example for this recognition:
On shows like "Ally McBeal," office workers use iMacs simply because their appearance says, "I am a cool computer in a cool office."
Jonathan Ive pointed out some important aspects of new design of iMac in his interview. Those aspects have displayed the image of Apple and Ive said “I think the iMac reflects the original mission: to create a great consumer product.”
iMac has changed not only a particular company’s trend line, but also whole computer business world. After the release of the iMac, the similar designed PCs or laptops have not been seen, but Apple stands for as a company as it is about redefining people's mindsets about what computers can look like. It has raised concerns about usability, ease of use, and design issues.
In his interview, Jonathan Ive said “A small team of designers worked like maniacs for several months to come up with the design, which was largely informed by what consumers wanted. First, people wanted a smaller PC that was easy to pick up and move; second, they wanted ease of use, fewer cables to connect and no complicated documentation to read when setting up the machine.” [iii]
The ease of use of iMac was provided by Apple engineering; however this could not be seen or felt by people without proper design of iMac. Ive said “Design alone would not have been sufficient to make it successful. The price is right, the performance is right, and the combination of those two attributes, along with the design, has made it a well-balanced, relevant product.”
Discussion
In 1991, Apple introduced the PowerBook line of portable computers. The success of the PowerBook and several other Apple products during this period led to increasing revenue.[iv] The 1990s also saw Apple's market share fall as competition from Microsoft Windows and the comparatively inexpensive IBM PC compatible computers that would eventually dominate the market.[v] Apple lost market share to Microsoft Windows, particularly Windows 95 — a major turning point in the history of the rival Windows operating system.
Those situations in the Apple Inc. created first step of change naturally: urgency. Since there was a common belief that they had to change immediately, their need is to find a leader to lead the change and create new vision.
Steve Jobs has created this great vision for Apple. This great change in vision of Apple was first started at the board meeting. From the Business Week article;
The co-founder of the once proud company had been fired by Apple 12 years before. He had returned seven months earlier as a consultant, when Amelio acquired his NeXT Software Inc. And now Jobs was back in charge. Wearing shorts, sneakers, and a few days' growth of beard, he sat down in a swivel chair and spun slowly, says McCluney, now president of storage provider Emulex Corp. "O.K., tell me what's wrong with this place," Jobs said. After some mumbled replies, he jumped in: "It's the products! So what's wrong with the products?" Again, executives began offering some answers. Jobs cut them off. "The products SUCK!" he roared. "There's no sex in them anymore!"
In March of 1998, in order to concentrate Apple's efforts on returning to profitability, Jobs immediately terminated a number of projects such as Newton, Cyberdog, and OpenDoc. In the coming months, many employees developed a fear of encountering Jobs while riding in the elevator, "afraid that they might not have a job when the doors opened. The reality was that Jobs's summary executions were rare, but a handful of victims were enough to terrorize a whole company."[vi]
The second step was to create a guiding team which was going to crafting the future of Apple under Jobs' guidance. Ives, who was the man behind the iMac’s new design, stated that when Jobs gathered the design team to talk about building what would become the iMac, he was clear he wanted to build on this historic form while at the same time updating it.
The company increased sales significantly with the introduction of the iMac and other new products; since then, appealing designs and powerful branding have worked well for Apple. Jobs has replaced Apple’s dysfunctional culture with a speedy organization, he says the company is ready to rise to the next level.[vii] What hasn't changed is his passion for doing, and saying, just about anything to help create the kinds of products that consumers love. In the nine years since Jobs returned to Apple, his unique modus operandi has sparked broad changes in the world of music, movies, and technology.[viii]
In my opinion, the 8-step-change management is the most effective way to lead change in extreme cases like Apple’s turnover story. In a company like Microsoft, Boeing or even in Apple now, this strategy could not lead to success. First of all urgency step is problematic: How long would company and therefore its employee live? In how many change management practice could you create urgency? After a couple of successful practice of creating urgency, employees used to live in urgency position and this would not generate any necessity for them to change. Change is the only thing that never changes in our life, and every company needs to adjust its business according to changing environment whether proactively or reactively. Once urgency could not be created, this change management method would lead company to collapse. Secondly, vision of a company should be changed, when there is a shift in company’s overall mission or the vision statement is not suitable for existing conditions. In every effort for a change in a company, vision statement should not be changed. This kind of management of change is suitable for companies that have been experiencing major difficulties.
[i] Carlson, M., Hoeschl, H. C., Bueno, T. C., & Barcellos, V. MACINTOSH PLATFORM Identity Sense And Competitive Strategies. E-Gov, Juridical Intelligence and Systems Institute – Ijuris.
[ii] IMac. (2007, October 13). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:46, October 14, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IMac&oldid=164351646
[iii] Essick, K. (1998). The Man Behind iMac. Retrieved Oct. 11, 2007, from http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9809/22/imacman.idg/
[iv] Hormby, Thomas. Growing Apple with the Macintosh: The Sculley years, Low End Mac, 2006-02-22. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.
[v] Cantrell, Amanda. Apple's remarkable comeback story, CNN, 2006-04-29. Retrieved on 2007-03-02.
[vi] Deutschman , A. (2000). The once and future Steve Jobs. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://archive.salon.com/tech/books/2000/10/11/jobs_excerpt/index2.html
[vii] Burrows, P. (2000). Apple Yes, Steve, You Fixed It. Congrats! Now What’s Act Two? Comug Newsletter, August 2000.
[viii] Burrows, P., Grover, R., & Green , H. (2007). Steve Jobs' Magic Kingdom. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2007, from http://www.businessweek.com/@@6DdtWYcQpRmXBxUA/magazine/content/06_06/b3970001.htm
Balance is Bunk - Fast Company - Usha Jose
In a reductionist approach to balance in life, author Keith H. Hammonds tries to take away the balance frenzy that consumes individuals and organizations. Contrary to his views a decade ago the author now advocates embracing imbalance, while reducing balance as an ‘unattainable pipe dream’. As the title implies, pursuit of balance is absurd and striving for balance can prove to be costly and even self-destructive. The author feels that it is high time that we thought about living in a post-balance world.
Today world thinks of balance in two ways: One, a superman/woman approach which makes everything including balance in life look attainable if you work hard for it, and another that promotes balance as self- contentedness and requires people to dream not so high. The first approach involves stressing out too much, the second calls for less accomplishment and being happy with what you have. The author is proposing a third way, which is “to embrace imbalance” and to accept it as a gift that sustains the beautiful things in life. Instead of trying to balance everything in life, it is practical to continually identify that one thing which demands our full commitment. These targets can of course vary from a demanding child to an important contract at work.
The author refers to Sigmund Freud’s idea of ‘imbalance as a human condition, and recognizes that inherent sense of imbalance and anxiety as a driver of changes, and inspiration for innovation. To kill that imbalance would be like eliminating ‘a central part of our existence’. To accomplish anything in life we need to have passion and that spur of imbalance. Many a times it requires a free fall, a total abandoning of other things to focus on one thing that is most important. According to John Wood, a former Microsoft employee, "There's the risk of inherent contradiction between wanting to do something entrepreneurial and wanting to have balance."
John Wood is a ‘happy work alcoholic’ a term used by Stewart Friedman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School to describe people who are passionate and thrilled by the task at hand. John is committed to Room to Read, a not-for-profit group that he founded to build schools and libraries in Asia. He works seven days a week, year-round and most days work does not fit into an 8 hour or even an 11 hour schedule. He does not perceive balance as an ideal, if he did, the world would not benefit from his work. He can happily trade off balance in life for happiness that he derives from work. In extolling balance as an ideal there is always the risk of devaluing work. Today’s global economy is anti-balance. Around the globe there are happy work alcoholics who can work any stretch of time to accomplish their goals. Many European countries including France are re-considering their ‘work to live’ ethics. Pursuit of balance will steer us away from the accomplishments we strive for.
Our pursuit of balance can turn frustrating because we are unable to prioritize and are consumed by “I want it all” attitude. Everything seems important to us, and we want to accomplish it all. This is what the author refers to as ‘superman trap’. We leverage our abilities and stretch it to a superman stature because we think that with some extra effort we can achieve everything. In this fallacy, life becomes a quest for perfection, and we get disappointed when things don’t work as we desire. It is important not to see the option to prioritize as a sign of failure. The author reminds us that it is ok not to achieve everything or to be in control of everything at one point in time. We need to accept the fact that we cannot entirely make work and life happen on our terms. We should be open to changes and be able “to switch the focus of our full attention among activities and people in different realms”.
We need to take a “long term view” regarding balance in life and “give up on the promise of balance at any point in time.” Instead, we should consider a “life and career as a portfolio” with varying responsibilities and priorities within each chapter. Balance then “becomes a lifelong quest -- balance among chapters rather than within each chapter”, instead of a struggling quest for perfection. Looking for a “50-50 split between work and life” is alchemist’s dream. Success is in being able to adapt to ever-changing circumstances and priorities and being ready to revise decisions based on current priorities all along the way. “The decision to reject the mirage of balance requires the discipline to continually prioritize and compromise.” The author wraps up the discussion by stating that “Balance per se isn't a goal” and exhorting us not to be slaves of our own standards, and to pursue happiness rather than balance in life.
Though the idea of considering balance as something not worthy to strive for does not sound very appealing, I personally feel that the author is right. If balance is a 50-50 division of work and life, it can be achieved, but it will not make us happy. What is the point in attaining balance is it is not making our life better? We often have more than what we can assign to the 50-50 buckets of work and life. The most important thing here is to prioritize and to identify the targets of our attention as it is nearly impossible to achieve anything in today’s world without total commitment to it. The title is misleading as it gives us the idea that the author is against the idea of balance in life. This has sparked some controversy among balance advocates, (“Balance is Not Bunk”: Wayne Caskey) but reading the article carefully shows that Keith is not against balance in life but against the blind pursuit of balance and its resulting frustration. Keith is not alone in this anti- balance campaign. Jack Welch & Suzie Welch, have voiced their interests to retire the term ‘work-life balance’ and to replace it with ‘work-life choices’ in their article Work and life: A Hobson's choice? Cali Williams Yost, a former commercial banker suggests that work fits life best when flexible, not balanced.
References
1) Just Enough: Tools for Creating Success in Your Work and Life (John Wiley & Sons, 2004).
2) Balance is Not Bunk: Wayne Caskey
http://www.waynecaskey.com/articles/smartCEO-2004-12.pdf
3) Work/Life: Why It's Work+Life "Fit," Not Balance!
http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/cwyost/2007/10/why_its_worklife_fit_not_balan.html
4) Work and life: A Hobson's choice? : Jack Welch and Suzy Welch
http://www.iipm.edu/iipm-editorial-471.html
5) Interview with Cali Williams Yost by Journal Sentinel reporter Tom Held, May 9, 2006
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=422357
Today world thinks of balance in two ways: One, a superman/woman approach which makes everything including balance in life look attainable if you work hard for it, and another that promotes balance as self- contentedness and requires people to dream not so high. The first approach involves stressing out too much, the second calls for less accomplishment and being happy with what you have. The author is proposing a third way, which is “to embrace imbalance” and to accept it as a gift that sustains the beautiful things in life. Instead of trying to balance everything in life, it is practical to continually identify that one thing which demands our full commitment. These targets can of course vary from a demanding child to an important contract at work.
The author refers to Sigmund Freud’s idea of ‘imbalance as a human condition, and recognizes that inherent sense of imbalance and anxiety as a driver of changes, and inspiration for innovation. To kill that imbalance would be like eliminating ‘a central part of our existence’. To accomplish anything in life we need to have passion and that spur of imbalance. Many a times it requires a free fall, a total abandoning of other things to focus on one thing that is most important. According to John Wood, a former Microsoft employee, "There's the risk of inherent contradiction between wanting to do something entrepreneurial and wanting to have balance."
John Wood is a ‘happy work alcoholic’ a term used by Stewart Friedman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School to describe people who are passionate and thrilled by the task at hand. John is committed to Room to Read, a not-for-profit group that he founded to build schools and libraries in Asia. He works seven days a week, year-round and most days work does not fit into an 8 hour or even an 11 hour schedule. He does not perceive balance as an ideal, if he did, the world would not benefit from his work. He can happily trade off balance in life for happiness that he derives from work. In extolling balance as an ideal there is always the risk of devaluing work. Today’s global economy is anti-balance. Around the globe there are happy work alcoholics who can work any stretch of time to accomplish their goals. Many European countries including France are re-considering their ‘work to live’ ethics. Pursuit of balance will steer us away from the accomplishments we strive for.
Our pursuit of balance can turn frustrating because we are unable to prioritize and are consumed by “I want it all” attitude. Everything seems important to us, and we want to accomplish it all. This is what the author refers to as ‘superman trap’. We leverage our abilities and stretch it to a superman stature because we think that with some extra effort we can achieve everything. In this fallacy, life becomes a quest for perfection, and we get disappointed when things don’t work as we desire. It is important not to see the option to prioritize as a sign of failure. The author reminds us that it is ok not to achieve everything or to be in control of everything at one point in time. We need to accept the fact that we cannot entirely make work and life happen on our terms. We should be open to changes and be able “to switch the focus of our full attention among activities and people in different realms”.
We need to take a “long term view” regarding balance in life and “give up on the promise of balance at any point in time.” Instead, we should consider a “life and career as a portfolio” with varying responsibilities and priorities within each chapter. Balance then “becomes a lifelong quest -- balance among chapters rather than within each chapter”, instead of a struggling quest for perfection. Looking for a “50-50 split between work and life” is alchemist’s dream. Success is in being able to adapt to ever-changing circumstances and priorities and being ready to revise decisions based on current priorities all along the way. “The decision to reject the mirage of balance requires the discipline to continually prioritize and compromise.” The author wraps up the discussion by stating that “Balance per se isn't a goal” and exhorting us not to be slaves of our own standards, and to pursue happiness rather than balance in life.
Though the idea of considering balance as something not worthy to strive for does not sound very appealing, I personally feel that the author is right. If balance is a 50-50 division of work and life, it can be achieved, but it will not make us happy. What is the point in attaining balance is it is not making our life better? We often have more than what we can assign to the 50-50 buckets of work and life. The most important thing here is to prioritize and to identify the targets of our attention as it is nearly impossible to achieve anything in today’s world without total commitment to it. The title is misleading as it gives us the idea that the author is against the idea of balance in life. This has sparked some controversy among balance advocates, (“Balance is Not Bunk”: Wayne Caskey) but reading the article carefully shows that Keith is not against balance in life but against the blind pursuit of balance and its resulting frustration. Keith is not alone in this anti- balance campaign. Jack Welch & Suzie Welch, have voiced their interests to retire the term ‘work-life balance’ and to replace it with ‘work-life choices’ in their article Work and life: A Hobson's choice? Cali Williams Yost, a former commercial banker suggests that work fits life best when flexible, not balanced.
References
1) Just Enough: Tools for Creating Success in Your Work and Life (John Wiley & Sons, 2004).
2) Balance is Not Bunk: Wayne Caskey
http://www.waynecaskey.com/articles/smartCEO-2004-12.pdf
3) Work/Life: Why It's Work+Life "Fit," Not Balance!
http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/cwyost/2007/10/why_its_worklife_fit_not_balan.html
4) Work and life: A Hobson's choice? : Jack Welch and Suzy Welch
http://www.iipm.edu/iipm-editorial-471.html
5) Interview with Cali Williams Yost by Journal Sentinel reporter Tom Held, May 9, 2006
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=422357
Starwave Takes the Web… (Seriously) - Fast Company - Ya-Ting Sandy Chan
Starwave Corp. was a Washington based software company funded by Paul Allen in 1993. Among CD-ROMs, video games, online services, and other products that Starwave produced, Starwave was most known for its multimedia Website business. Starwave was an important early Internet player; it was one of the pioneers of the area of media Website who set up the model. Starwave established such Web heavyweights as ESPN.com, ABC.com and Mr. Showbiz. In 1998, the company was acquired by Infoseek, who in turn was acquired by Disney later the same year. This article was written in 1996 when Starwave’s media Web business was starting to gain reputation about to take off. As the first company to develop the uncultivated land of multimedia Web, Starwave was facing multiple challenges without any previous case to reference.
The issues that Starwave was facing were mostly challenges as a pioneer in its business. One of the major challenges was finding the right people to work with. Recruiting talented people with different media background that are adventurous enough to obsolete their proven skills in pursuit of an unproven new business was hard. Even more difficult was to meld these skills and talents. Giving more thoughts into this challenge, I figured this was a change management – on a personal level –as well. Similar situations happen whenever companies recruit talents from other businesses. When an individual is willing to make personal changes for a company, how should the company compensate and help the individual? In the case of Starwave, the challenge was even more complex because it was dealing with changes as a company and trying to converge its very talented employees whom are also changing on a personal level.
One thing that really caught my eyes was the fact that Starwave didn’t startup with a strong focus on media Website, which it was most known for. “When Slade joined Starwave, the company had no content or product focus -- it was trying to make something happen in interactive media, possibly as a tools company, possibly as a content company. Slade focused Starwave on opportunities in sports, entertainment, kids, and families -- and identified a three-pronged strategy of online services, CD-ROMs, and broadcast. Then, one year later, Starwave did a sharp turn onto the Net.”(1996) Mike Slade was the CEO of Starwave Corp. at the time, his decision to change the company’s strategy was a bold act but was also proven a smart choice. Making big changes to the strategy of a startup company sounds pretty risky to me because it can easily be interpreted as a sign of unstable leadership, especially when the company is in a business relatively new. At the same time, it sounds reasonable because the company might be trying the water and trying to find its direction. The article did not talk much about the reactions of Starwave employees after the change of strategy but as mentioned earlier, most Starwave employees put away their original jobs to pursuit a new business. They wanted to be part of the next new exciting thing. Mike Slade and Paul Allen were also believers of this new exciting thing. They were all on the same boat and were determined to find the route to this undiscovered land. I believe the strong minded leadership and the feeling of the company as a team for better or worse was one of the key factors that lead Starwave through its change of strategy and success.
Reading this article after it being written for 11 years was very interesting because it took me back to 1996. Many of the cool things that they were expecting to happen on the Internet have already came true and been taken for granted nowadays, for example, watching NBA finals on the internet. To better understand the stand point of people in 1996, I tried to search for Starwave.com and ESPN.com in Wayback Machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php). The results were pretty shocking as I am so used to the fancy Websites we see everyday. Take a look at these links and you would understand what I mean: http://web.archive.org/web/19961022185319/http://www.starwave.com/ , (Oct. 22, 1996, starwave.com). http://web.archive.org/web/19981212013850/espn.sportszone.com/ ,(Dec. 03, 1998, espn.com). Looking at these old websites makes me think of how far we have come in the virtual space of Internet. It is amazing how much these websites have changed and how Starwave had the foresight and the faith in risking it all on these mostly text based websites.
References
Lohr, S. (1996). The Great Mystery of Internet Profits. The New York Times. Sec.D, Business/Financial Desk. June 17, 1996.
Lohr, S (1997). The Media Business; Two Internet Start-ups Catch Eye of Corporate Media Giants. The New York Times. Sec.D, Business/Financial Desk. Feb 18, 1997.
Egan, T (1995). The 6.5 Billion Man. The New York Times. Sec.3, Money and Business/Financial Desk. Oct 29, 1995.
Waltner, C (1995). Starwave Shows its Star Power Deals With ‘Outside,’ ESPN and Ticketmaster Buoy Paul Allen Startup. Advertising Age. March 20, 1995. Pg.16.
Holland, K (1997). When You Wish Upon A Starwave. Business Week, April 14, 1997, Number 3522; Pg. 51
The issues that Starwave was facing were mostly challenges as a pioneer in its business. One of the major challenges was finding the right people to work with. Recruiting talented people with different media background that are adventurous enough to obsolete their proven skills in pursuit of an unproven new business was hard. Even more difficult was to meld these skills and talents. Giving more thoughts into this challenge, I figured this was a change management – on a personal level –as well. Similar situations happen whenever companies recruit talents from other businesses. When an individual is willing to make personal changes for a company, how should the company compensate and help the individual? In the case of Starwave, the challenge was even more complex because it was dealing with changes as a company and trying to converge its very talented employees whom are also changing on a personal level.
One thing that really caught my eyes was the fact that Starwave didn’t startup with a strong focus on media Website, which it was most known for. “When Slade joined Starwave, the company had no content or product focus -- it was trying to make something happen in interactive media, possibly as a tools company, possibly as a content company. Slade focused Starwave on opportunities in sports, entertainment, kids, and families -- and identified a three-pronged strategy of online services, CD-ROMs, and broadcast. Then, one year later, Starwave did a sharp turn onto the Net.”(1996) Mike Slade was the CEO of Starwave Corp. at the time, his decision to change the company’s strategy was a bold act but was also proven a smart choice. Making big changes to the strategy of a startup company sounds pretty risky to me because it can easily be interpreted as a sign of unstable leadership, especially when the company is in a business relatively new. At the same time, it sounds reasonable because the company might be trying the water and trying to find its direction. The article did not talk much about the reactions of Starwave employees after the change of strategy but as mentioned earlier, most Starwave employees put away their original jobs to pursuit a new business. They wanted to be part of the next new exciting thing. Mike Slade and Paul Allen were also believers of this new exciting thing. They were all on the same boat and were determined to find the route to this undiscovered land. I believe the strong minded leadership and the feeling of the company as a team for better or worse was one of the key factors that lead Starwave through its change of strategy and success.
Reading this article after it being written for 11 years was very interesting because it took me back to 1996. Many of the cool things that they were expecting to happen on the Internet have already came true and been taken for granted nowadays, for example, watching NBA finals on the internet. To better understand the stand point of people in 1996, I tried to search for Starwave.com and ESPN.com in Wayback Machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php). The results were pretty shocking as I am so used to the fancy Websites we see everyday. Take a look at these links and you would understand what I mean: http://web.archive.org/web/19961022185319/http://www.starwave.com/ , (Oct. 22, 1996, starwave.com). http://web.archive.org/web/19981212013850/espn.sportszone.com/ ,(Dec. 03, 1998, espn.com). Looking at these old websites makes me think of how far we have come in the virtual space of Internet. It is amazing how much these websites have changed and how Starwave had the foresight and the faith in risking it all on these mostly text based websites.
References
Lohr, S. (1996). The Great Mystery of Internet Profits. The New York Times. Sec.D, Business/Financial Desk. June 17, 1996.
Lohr, S (1997). The Media Business; Two Internet Start-ups Catch Eye of Corporate Media Giants. The New York Times. Sec.D, Business/Financial Desk. Feb 18, 1997.
Egan, T (1995). The 6.5 Billion Man. The New York Times. Sec.3, Money and Business/Financial Desk. Oct 29, 1995.
Waltner, C (1995). Starwave Shows its Star Power Deals With ‘Outside,’ ESPN and Ticketmaster Buoy Paul Allen Startup. Advertising Age. March 20, 1995. Pg.16.
Holland, K (1997). When You Wish Upon A Starwave. Business Week, April 14, 1997, Number 3522; Pg. 51
The Wisdom of Chairman Ko - Fast Company - Bryce A. Smart
Flextronics made an incredibly prudent decision. When the opportunity presented itself, they acquired Solectron. It happened on October 1, 2007 and Solectron sold for over $3.6 billion. This just shows how fast business moves in a globalized economy.
Solectron saved the American manufacturing industry. Chairman Ko Nishimura saved Solectron. The high-tech assembly and manufacturing company began in the solar energy niche market but moved into manufacturing in order to avoid marginalization as oil prices plummeted after the energy crises of the late 1970s. Formed by flow of refugees from IBM and other industry giants, Solectron began to develop into a stable, respectable company. Then outsourcing was discovered. With the trend of sending manufacturing overseas where labor and COBs were more than twelve times lower than in America, the U.S manufacturing industry became maligned as ‘inefficient, overly priced, and poor net value’.
Enter Ko Nishimura.
Just Enough
The man is amazing. One can tell from a first impression that he has fully adopted his Zen Buddhist heritage. Doing “Just enough”, the essence of Shibui—the Japanese reverence of a state of austerity, both beautiful and beautifully efficient—rules Nishimura’s life and business practices. He claims to be able to be fully dressed and ready for work in less than two minutes after waking up. The reason? All his suit jackets (grey) match all his shirts (white), which match all his ties (simple, go well with grey), which match all his slacks (also grey), and match all his socks (darker gray/black), and finally, which match all his black shoes. Additionally, none of his suits are extravagant designer outfits, despite his personal fortune. They’re all quality, off-the-shelf makes.
His work philosophy is equally Spartan. His building has no fanciful decorations, those are unnecessary costs. His office is a simple, undecorated 12’ x 12’ square—and is the biggest one in the building. By reducing other cube and office sizes, Nishimura could increase the capacity of his office, which otherwise may have necessitated the purchase of a second office space. This in turn would have required an entirely different set of communication infrastructure, jumping fixed costs.
This “just enough” philosophy transformed Solectron from a Silicon Valley start-up grossing $300 million a year into a $30 billion juggernaut in an industry that was almost written off as a failure.
Learning Lessons
After seeing his father, an experienced engineer, reduced to working at a fruit stand after the Japanese Internment ended, Ko Nishimura learned that no one should be underestimated or underutilized. In college, he was advised against attempting a degree in engineering, but convinced a professor to add him to his calculus class. While the professor expected him to fail, he succeeded and received Bachelor and Master’s degrees at San Jose state. He later earned a PhD at Stanford. At Solectron, Nishimura grew the employee learning program to over 2600 possible courses, completely paid for by the company. Employees could even receive full, accredited Master’s degrees from Santa Clara University without paying a cent. Everyone deserves a chance, no one should be underestimated.
In addition to personal learning and growth, a major part of Nishimura’s success lay in a belief in organizational learning. When he first learned of the Baldridge awards, the highest distinction that can be awarded to an American manufacturing company, Nishimura immediately applied, despite Solectron’s being significantly under-qualified for the award. While his application didn’t even merit a site visit, the response he received explained, in broad terms, where his company failed to meet the board’s criteria. Nishimura never intended to win—he counted on the details in his denial letter and used it as free consulting. Because of the value of the feedback (which added up to millions of dollars in free consulting), Nishimura applied for the Baldridge every year, revising his strategies off of their recommendations. After several years, he won. Then, once he became eligible again for the prize, he won again, becoming the first manufacturing company to receive a Baldridge twice.
After bring Solectron up to the top of its category, Nishimura still wasn’t content. “We want to be the best at what we do. Our internal process, which we administer every 18 months, keeps us focused on continually improving things for our customers.” It also helped keep Solectron agile and responsive to changing market conditions.
Winds of Change
The outsourcing boom in full swing, Ko Nishimura took the reins at Solectron at what seemed to be a very bad time. Fortunately, however, Nishimura understood an important business concept that, in some ways, was being overlooked by many large assembly firms: supply chain management. He realized that to remain competitive with, and beat, foreign manufacturing organizations, Solectron had to shorten the supply chain for its clients. Nishimura’s constant demand for improvement, his Spartan, efficient mentality, coupled with Solectron’s central location in Silicon Valley made this possible. With outsourcing, a technology giant like HP or IBM would have to freight ship raw materials across the Pacific Ocean to their manufacturing facilities—at best a 15-day journey. When the materials have to be transferred overland to a major departure port, like Oakland, CA, another 10-14 days will be added on to the journey. After the raw materials are manufactured, then assembled, they are either sent by FedEx as completed products (as in the case of Dell Computer) or are mass shipped back to the American company—another 15+ day journey from most locations.
Because of the tremendous costs associated with coordinating massive supply chains spanning tens of thousands of miles, Nishimura found an opportunity to provide a unique service that outsourcing firms could not: location. By providing a dramatically shorter supply chain, Solectron could reduce the overhead costs associated with overseas outsourcing.
This critical benefit, coupled with Solectron’s Baldridge award, effectively allowed Nishimura to pick his customers. While this was a nice problem to have, it was still a problem. Seizing the opportunity, Nishimura began to acquire high-tech factories across the country as fast as he could. His excitement and vision of the future of America high-tech manufacturing was almost wholly unique. When Solectron bought a manufacturing function divested by NCR, a subsidiary of AT&T, Nishimura exclaimed “I need these people. I need these people—and more.”
Jim Wallace, the NCR manufacturing director who architected NCR’s sale to Solectron: "Rather than seeing us as a necessary evil—a cost center to be controlled—he saw us as a business in which manufacturing was the core competence." He was so impressed by Nishimura’s unique perspective that he told NCR’s board that if they didn’t sell to Solectron, he wouldn’t be part of selling to anyone else.
Mixed Messages
When NCR was incorporated into Solectron, they found themselves effectively out of their league, as Solectron provided large amounts of autonomy. Rather than just being another cost center to the much larger company, Nishimura treated each factory as their own company, setting a specific set of quality and production goals for them to meet each quarter. Aside from that, they were supposed to be able to do almost whatever they wanted.
Much of this changed quickly, however. During a meeting with a client, Nishimura was told that despite Solectron’s excellent deliverables, the client felt like he was ordering from many different companies. All of the letterheads, invoices, and other documents were different, as were uniforms, and some other customer touch-points.
Nishimura took this to heart and immediately began standardizing machinery, human resources elements, documentation, and other elements within the company. Within the first year of these sets of changes, more than 6 percent of the NCR plants quit or were fired. Many others, from all areas of the company, voiced frustration and dissent, but got onboard anyway. Apparently, however, most were pleased, or at least content, with the changes. Yet the degree of dissent and grudging compliance seemed more than one would have expected.
For instance, many found resistance when Solectron required all of its employees to wear identical, logoed, and unmodified smocks in each factory. The explanation was that this prevented static discharge into electronic components. The factory workers voiced their frustrations, pointing to the dehumanizing sensation it left them with, and mentioning that they already tethered themselves to the assembly line with anti-static wristbands that performed the same function as the smocks. In reality, this policy change, out-of-the-hands of individual plants, seemed to be to present a degree of conformity to their customer contact points. It also undermined the factories’ autonomy. Additionally, Nishimura ordered all the factories to adhere to corporate standard machine ordering processes, even dictating which machines they should order and how many of each. When one factory needed customized machinery to make parts for a major client whose components the standard machinery could not handle, they bypassed all of Nishimura’s carefully-constructed processes and deployed the new line in three weeks, rather than the three months that the process would normally take. When Nishimura found out, he was livid, saying that they were undermining the integrity of his standardization, and even considered firing them. Once the customer reviews came in from the client, however, Nishimura had to eat his sharp words. The clients lauded the innovative factory staff for making things happen so quickly and effectively, without sacrificing quality. Their autonomy was only accepted after it succeeded, not beforehand.
You make the call
1. How important is it for a CEO’s personal life and work life to align?
2. How well did Nishimura handle the balance between standardization and factory autonomy?
3. How did Solectron do well in terms of Organizational Learning? How did it do poorly?
4. If you were in Nishimura’s shoes, what would you have done to make Solectron successful?
Resources
· http://www.solectron.com/main/index.html
· http://www.flextronics.com/en/default.aspx
· http://www.asianpacificfund.org/awards/bio_nishimura.shtml
· http://www.manufacturing.gov/report/index.asp
· http://www.sdcexec.com/web/online/In-Depth/Impact-of-Globalization-in-Creating-Sustainable-Competitive-Advantage/4$9855
· http://www.hanjin.com/eservice/enis/en/schedule/Schedule.do
· http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071001/flextronics_acquisition.html?.v=1
· http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6487171.html
Solectron saved the American manufacturing industry. Chairman Ko Nishimura saved Solectron. The high-tech assembly and manufacturing company began in the solar energy niche market but moved into manufacturing in order to avoid marginalization as oil prices plummeted after the energy crises of the late 1970s. Formed by flow of refugees from IBM and other industry giants, Solectron began to develop into a stable, respectable company. Then outsourcing was discovered. With the trend of sending manufacturing overseas where labor and COBs were more than twelve times lower than in America, the U.S manufacturing industry became maligned as ‘inefficient, overly priced, and poor net value’.
Enter Ko Nishimura.
Just Enough
The man is amazing. One can tell from a first impression that he has fully adopted his Zen Buddhist heritage. Doing “Just enough”, the essence of Shibui—the Japanese reverence of a state of austerity, both beautiful and beautifully efficient—rules Nishimura’s life and business practices. He claims to be able to be fully dressed and ready for work in less than two minutes after waking up. The reason? All his suit jackets (grey) match all his shirts (white), which match all his ties (simple, go well with grey), which match all his slacks (also grey), and match all his socks (darker gray/black), and finally, which match all his black shoes. Additionally, none of his suits are extravagant designer outfits, despite his personal fortune. They’re all quality, off-the-shelf makes.
His work philosophy is equally Spartan. His building has no fanciful decorations, those are unnecessary costs. His office is a simple, undecorated 12’ x 12’ square—and is the biggest one in the building. By reducing other cube and office sizes, Nishimura could increase the capacity of his office, which otherwise may have necessitated the purchase of a second office space. This in turn would have required an entirely different set of communication infrastructure, jumping fixed costs.
This “just enough” philosophy transformed Solectron from a Silicon Valley start-up grossing $300 million a year into a $30 billion juggernaut in an industry that was almost written off as a failure.
Learning Lessons
After seeing his father, an experienced engineer, reduced to working at a fruit stand after the Japanese Internment ended, Ko Nishimura learned that no one should be underestimated or underutilized. In college, he was advised against attempting a degree in engineering, but convinced a professor to add him to his calculus class. While the professor expected him to fail, he succeeded and received Bachelor and Master’s degrees at San Jose state. He later earned a PhD at Stanford. At Solectron, Nishimura grew the employee learning program to over 2600 possible courses, completely paid for by the company. Employees could even receive full, accredited Master’s degrees from Santa Clara University without paying a cent. Everyone deserves a chance, no one should be underestimated.
In addition to personal learning and growth, a major part of Nishimura’s success lay in a belief in organizational learning. When he first learned of the Baldridge awards, the highest distinction that can be awarded to an American manufacturing company, Nishimura immediately applied, despite Solectron’s being significantly under-qualified for the award. While his application didn’t even merit a site visit, the response he received explained, in broad terms, where his company failed to meet the board’s criteria. Nishimura never intended to win—he counted on the details in his denial letter and used it as free consulting. Because of the value of the feedback (which added up to millions of dollars in free consulting), Nishimura applied for the Baldridge every year, revising his strategies off of their recommendations. After several years, he won. Then, once he became eligible again for the prize, he won again, becoming the first manufacturing company to receive a Baldridge twice.
After bring Solectron up to the top of its category, Nishimura still wasn’t content. “We want to be the best at what we do. Our internal process, which we administer every 18 months, keeps us focused on continually improving things for our customers.” It also helped keep Solectron agile and responsive to changing market conditions.
Winds of Change
The outsourcing boom in full swing, Ko Nishimura took the reins at Solectron at what seemed to be a very bad time. Fortunately, however, Nishimura understood an important business concept that, in some ways, was being overlooked by many large assembly firms: supply chain management. He realized that to remain competitive with, and beat, foreign manufacturing organizations, Solectron had to shorten the supply chain for its clients. Nishimura’s constant demand for improvement, his Spartan, efficient mentality, coupled with Solectron’s central location in Silicon Valley made this possible. With outsourcing, a technology giant like HP or IBM would have to freight ship raw materials across the Pacific Ocean to their manufacturing facilities—at best a 15-day journey. When the materials have to be transferred overland to a major departure port, like Oakland, CA, another 10-14 days will be added on to the journey. After the raw materials are manufactured, then assembled, they are either sent by FedEx as completed products (as in the case of Dell Computer) or are mass shipped back to the American company—another 15+ day journey from most locations.
Because of the tremendous costs associated with coordinating massive supply chains spanning tens of thousands of miles, Nishimura found an opportunity to provide a unique service that outsourcing firms could not: location. By providing a dramatically shorter supply chain, Solectron could reduce the overhead costs associated with overseas outsourcing.
This critical benefit, coupled with Solectron’s Baldridge award, effectively allowed Nishimura to pick his customers. While this was a nice problem to have, it was still a problem. Seizing the opportunity, Nishimura began to acquire high-tech factories across the country as fast as he could. His excitement and vision of the future of America high-tech manufacturing was almost wholly unique. When Solectron bought a manufacturing function divested by NCR, a subsidiary of AT&T, Nishimura exclaimed “I need these people. I need these people—and more.”
Jim Wallace, the NCR manufacturing director who architected NCR’s sale to Solectron: "Rather than seeing us as a necessary evil—a cost center to be controlled—he saw us as a business in which manufacturing was the core competence." He was so impressed by Nishimura’s unique perspective that he told NCR’s board that if they didn’t sell to Solectron, he wouldn’t be part of selling to anyone else.
Mixed Messages
When NCR was incorporated into Solectron, they found themselves effectively out of their league, as Solectron provided large amounts of autonomy. Rather than just being another cost center to the much larger company, Nishimura treated each factory as their own company, setting a specific set of quality and production goals for them to meet each quarter. Aside from that, they were supposed to be able to do almost whatever they wanted.
Much of this changed quickly, however. During a meeting with a client, Nishimura was told that despite Solectron’s excellent deliverables, the client felt like he was ordering from many different companies. All of the letterheads, invoices, and other documents were different, as were uniforms, and some other customer touch-points.
Nishimura took this to heart and immediately began standardizing machinery, human resources elements, documentation, and other elements within the company. Within the first year of these sets of changes, more than 6 percent of the NCR plants quit or were fired. Many others, from all areas of the company, voiced frustration and dissent, but got onboard anyway. Apparently, however, most were pleased, or at least content, with the changes. Yet the degree of dissent and grudging compliance seemed more than one would have expected.
For instance, many found resistance when Solectron required all of its employees to wear identical, logoed, and unmodified smocks in each factory. The explanation was that this prevented static discharge into electronic components. The factory workers voiced their frustrations, pointing to the dehumanizing sensation it left them with, and mentioning that they already tethered themselves to the assembly line with anti-static wristbands that performed the same function as the smocks. In reality, this policy change, out-of-the-hands of individual plants, seemed to be to present a degree of conformity to their customer contact points. It also undermined the factories’ autonomy. Additionally, Nishimura ordered all the factories to adhere to corporate standard machine ordering processes, even dictating which machines they should order and how many of each. When one factory needed customized machinery to make parts for a major client whose components the standard machinery could not handle, they bypassed all of Nishimura’s carefully-constructed processes and deployed the new line in three weeks, rather than the three months that the process would normally take. When Nishimura found out, he was livid, saying that they were undermining the integrity of his standardization, and even considered firing them. Once the customer reviews came in from the client, however, Nishimura had to eat his sharp words. The clients lauded the innovative factory staff for making things happen so quickly and effectively, without sacrificing quality. Their autonomy was only accepted after it succeeded, not beforehand.
You make the call
1. How important is it for a CEO’s personal life and work life to align?
2. How well did Nishimura handle the balance between standardization and factory autonomy?
3. How did Solectron do well in terms of Organizational Learning? How did it do poorly?
4. If you were in Nishimura’s shoes, what would you have done to make Solectron successful?
Resources
· http://www.solectron.com/main/index.html
· http://www.flextronics.com/en/default.aspx
· http://www.asianpacificfund.org/awards/bio_nishimura.shtml
· http://www.manufacturing.gov/report/index.asp
· http://www.sdcexec.com/web/online/In-Depth/Impact-of-Globalization-in-Creating-Sustainable-Competitive-Advantage/4$9855
· http://www.hanjin.com/eservice/enis/en/schedule/Schedule.do
· http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071001/flextronics_acquisition.html?.v=1
· http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6487171.html
Updating the Agenda: Microstrategy Inc – Fast Company - Gints Salaks
Michael Saylor, CEO and cofounder of Microstrategy, had a great vision – to create a free online university by donating $100 millions of his wealth. But his ambitious plans were interrupted when his company’s stock price dropped 90% and his net worth fell from $13 billion to $900 million in one day. Microstrategy was accused of bookkeeping irregularities by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the internal investigation lasted over 9 months after which the SEC and Microstrategy came to settlement.
“In a matter of months, the company went from symbolizing everything that was new and exhilarating about business in the Internet Age to symbolizing everything that had gone wrong with young companies that had grown too big too fast, without paying careful attention to the fundamentals.”
The damage was done to the company which makes software that helps businesses discern patterns in large masses of data and represents it either on web-based dashboards or other types of platforms, for example, wireless personal devices. Once, growing fast and without limits, now the company had to make sacrificing changes to the organization. Microstrategy rescinded 236 job offers and laid-off at least 1/3 of its employees. Saylor was eager to save his sinking ship. He knew that he had to make some changes in order to continue with what he was doing. Microstrategy toughened its accounting practices, reduced its outrageous spending habits like Super Bowl TV ads, all-expenses-paid Caribbean company wide trips and most importantly changed its growth strategy, price, products, management and leadership style.
Before the downfall, company’s strategy was that there isn’t any problem which it couldn’t tackle. Today company reshaped it and focuses on its specialty – “..making software that analyzes a company’s database and identifies trends that can cut costs and increase revenue”. Surprisingly it also changed its target audience – yesterday when it just focused on large enterprises, today it is accessible to anyone who has a database.
Pricing tactics also has stiffened for Microstrategy products. In the past, when the price of the software varied, depending on the number of employees who were using it and on the training or consultant requirements, now it sells its products and training or consulting separately, reducing confusion in price negotiation and accounting. In many cases, there is a fixed price for its products which are available to view at Microstrategy’s website.
At the end, Microstrategy has survived the wave of stock price drop, vision change, management change and its core value restructurization. Today, when company has grown again, has been awarded numerous awards for it exemplifier performance and practices, but at what price?
Discussion:
It is always good that one has a cushion to fall on like Michael Saylor had. Yes, he did loose $10+ billion because of Microstrategy’s crisis, but employees like Betty J. Lauricia and many more who have invested so much time and money in Microstrategy have lost even more – their jobs and life savings. It seems that this article and many others focus on CEO’s perspective and makes them some sort of superheroes who save the company, but the reality is, they do it on expense on the others. Is it fair that CEO gets all the applauses but then it was his fault that the company got stuck in that puddle?
The Microstrategy has settled all its problems quietly. CEO Saylor and COO Sanju Bansal each settled with the SEC in December, 2000, without admitting or denying the regulators' allegations, by agreeing not to violate federal securities law and by paying an undisclosed amount in disgorgement and civil penalties. Since that massive shock, Microstrategy quietly set about cleaning up the mess. CFO Eric Brown, who joined in August, 2000, finished paying off the entire outstanding debt. That included $80 million it raised to help pay off a $125 million shareholder class-action settlement and a separate $125 million issued during the depths of its troubles to keep operations afloat. Many employees-to-be received mail from Microstrategy of canceling their employment and offering 2 months paid if they will not follow with suing Microstrategy for canceling their contract. All this secretness makes me suspicious. Why is there so much to hide and be so quite about it. CEO had to admit that they were wrong and start a new page, but he chose to hide all the information.
Michael Saylor states he is preserving core values, but then again more than 1/3 of employees got laid-off. “The past 12 months have really shown that culture is by far most important thing in a company. If we had constructed a culture that was based solely on stock price or on prestige, there wouldn’t be a reason to be here now,” says Saylor. What was the culture? Get rich fast and hope that no one will notice that? He claims that accounting irregularities were caused by PriceWaterHouse, which was accounting advisor for Microstrategy at that time, but the reality is CEO didn’t know what’s going on in his own firm which means that he didn’t have great control!
It seems that CEO Michael Saylor was too inexperienced and should have stepped down and the company should have hired some qualified CEO who could have dealt with this problem in a better way.
Sources
“In a matter of months, the company went from symbolizing everything that was new and exhilarating about business in the Internet Age to symbolizing everything that had gone wrong with young companies that had grown too big too fast, without paying careful attention to the fundamentals.”
The damage was done to the company which makes software that helps businesses discern patterns in large masses of data and represents it either on web-based dashboards or other types of platforms, for example, wireless personal devices. Once, growing fast and without limits, now the company had to make sacrificing changes to the organization. Microstrategy rescinded 236 job offers and laid-off at least 1/3 of its employees. Saylor was eager to save his sinking ship. He knew that he had to make some changes in order to continue with what he was doing. Microstrategy toughened its accounting practices, reduced its outrageous spending habits like Super Bowl TV ads, all-expenses-paid Caribbean company wide trips and most importantly changed its growth strategy, price, products, management and leadership style.
Before the downfall, company’s strategy was that there isn’t any problem which it couldn’t tackle. Today company reshaped it and focuses on its specialty – “..making software that analyzes a company’s database and identifies trends that can cut costs and increase revenue”. Surprisingly it also changed its target audience – yesterday when it just focused on large enterprises, today it is accessible to anyone who has a database.
Pricing tactics also has stiffened for Microstrategy products. In the past, when the price of the software varied, depending on the number of employees who were using it and on the training or consultant requirements, now it sells its products and training or consulting separately, reducing confusion in price negotiation and accounting. In many cases, there is a fixed price for its products which are available to view at Microstrategy’s website.
At the end, Microstrategy has survived the wave of stock price drop, vision change, management change and its core value restructurization. Today, when company has grown again, has been awarded numerous awards for it exemplifier performance and practices, but at what price?
Discussion:
It is always good that one has a cushion to fall on like Michael Saylor had. Yes, he did loose $10+ billion because of Microstrategy’s crisis, but employees like Betty J. Lauricia and many more who have invested so much time and money in Microstrategy have lost even more – their jobs and life savings. It seems that this article and many others focus on CEO’s perspective and makes them some sort of superheroes who save the company, but the reality is, they do it on expense on the others. Is it fair that CEO gets all the applauses but then it was his fault that the company got stuck in that puddle?
The Microstrategy has settled all its problems quietly. CEO Saylor and COO Sanju Bansal each settled with the SEC in December, 2000, without admitting or denying the regulators' allegations, by agreeing not to violate federal securities law and by paying an undisclosed amount in disgorgement and civil penalties. Since that massive shock, Microstrategy quietly set about cleaning up the mess. CFO Eric Brown, who joined in August, 2000, finished paying off the entire outstanding debt. That included $80 million it raised to help pay off a $125 million shareholder class-action settlement and a separate $125 million issued during the depths of its troubles to keep operations afloat. Many employees-to-be received mail from Microstrategy of canceling their employment and offering 2 months paid if they will not follow with suing Microstrategy for canceling their contract. All this secretness makes me suspicious. Why is there so much to hide and be so quite about it. CEO had to admit that they were wrong and start a new page, but he chose to hide all the information.
Michael Saylor states he is preserving core values, but then again more than 1/3 of employees got laid-off. “The past 12 months have really shown that culture is by far most important thing in a company. If we had constructed a culture that was based solely on stock price or on prestige, there wouldn’t be a reason to be here now,” says Saylor. What was the culture? Get rich fast and hope that no one will notice that? He claims that accounting irregularities were caused by PriceWaterHouse, which was accounting advisor for Microstrategy at that time, but the reality is CEO didn’t know what’s going on in his own firm which means that he didn’t have great control!
It seems that CEO Michael Saylor was too inexperienced and should have stepped down and the company should have hired some qualified CEO who could have dealt with this problem in a better way.
Sources
- Christopher H. Schmitt and Paula Dwyer. Did the Auditors Cross the Line?
BusinessWeek, September 25, 2000. - David S. Hilzenrath. For MicroStrategy, A Matter of Timing; Booking
of Revenue At Core of Troubles For Software Firm. The Washington Post. March 22,
2000. - David S. Hilzenrath. Saylor, Still Strategizing; As MicroStrategy's
Troubles Mount, CEO Searches for Cash to Realize His Vision. The Washington
Post. August 20, 2000. - David S. Hilzenrath. MicroStrategy Auditor To Settle
Investor Suit; Accounting Giant to Pay $55 Million. The Washington Post. May 9,
2001. - Catherine Yang. MicroStrategy's Second Wind. Business Week. February 9,
2004
Everything I thought I new about leadership is wrong - Fast Company - Sinsath Shameer
“Everything I thought I new about leadership is wrong!” This is a very humble statement made by the person who at the time of writing this article had worked being the President and vice chairman of EDS for many years.
People and their expectations from their job are changing and organizations’ should change along with it. More and more people are passionate about an organizations’ social responsibility and what an organizations’ stand is on a particular social issue; which can range from their views on diversity at work place, treating minorities to their efforts in reducing poverty around the globe. This is a micro trend that has been developed over a couple of years and organizations have been evolving to be in par with the current situation.
In the current scenario would it work to be a dictator leader? Mort Meyerson had this revelation after he left EDS and how the company though was very successful financially, but had done very little to uplift the lives of its employees. The organization had put too much pressure on the employees to increase their productivity in return for monetary gains and this had a very diverse effect on their personal and family lives.
So at Perot systems he didn’t want to heed this self destructive behavior of the organization where the best people wouldn’t want to work for the company and initiated some reform measures that included revamping the organizations’ culture into a more employee friendly one, providing training to the top leaders and also making those with abusive behaviors who couldn’t change their attitude by making them leave the company.
Finally after lot of change management efforts they were able to build a company that not only focused on economic and day-to-day business, but also concerned themselves with the well being of its employees and customers.
It’s been an age old idea that work is not the place where people bring their emotional problems. The idea has been changing now in some organizations and at the new reformed Perot Systems, employees where recognized as emotional beings with real personal issues. They were encouraged to work with their emotions and not against it. This a great thought considering the fact that people have real problems and it makes their life much easy to be able to work in a company that recognizes and supports the fact that they have a life outside work. This kind of culture has been successfully implemented in companies like Starbucks which has a high employee satisfaction rate and a very low turn over ratio.
The writer then talks about how the leadership has changed with the new organizational culture and how this change is for the betterment of the company. He moved from more of a dictator leader to a servant leader who puts the interest of the team and the company above any self interest. It’s about bringing the right people on the team, nurturing relationships and encouraging its people to grow and flourish in the organization. It’s not about pushing ones ideas over others but listening to their expert opinions and giving them a little autonomy over the way.
The writer argues that a leader as being someone who guides the team, but not who makes decisions for them. This is one aspect of the writer’s point that I couldn’t quite agree upon. A leader should be someone that people want to look up to; it’s someone you want to believe who makes the best judgment calls. So when people come with a difficult situation, it’s the job of the leader to help them make the right choice based on all the information available. It’s true that it’s not possible for a person to know everything, but with the right advisors and with the right people on the team, a leader should be making the ultimate decision call during a crisis rather than telling the employees that it’s not his job to make decisions for them. This will make the leader more respectful among the employees and as someone whom they could rely on during a difficult situation.
Mort Meyerson then moved on become a leader who is accessible all the time and through anyone in the company. This seems to be a nice notion as it shows that the company chief cares for even the people in the lower levels and it reinforces the original idea of having a culture that cares for its people. On the downside, it’s the responsibility of the employees to make sure that the leader is not swamped with unimportant requests and this is something to be considered as to how it can be achieved.
The leaders today have to be genuine; they should be able to understand psychology and understand themselves. It is not possible to manipulate and lead the team without showing compassion for their employees, customers and everything associated with the organization. The idea of being a servant leader seems to be idealized by the writer, but how feasible it is in today’s organization? With the ever changing and innovative organizations where new directions are constantly sought, it is not possible to make everyone happy. The organization wants someone who not only coaches the team, but also is rigid and gives orders when needed. So some balance should be sought on being nice to the people and being someone who can make great judgment calls irrespective of how uncomfortable it’s going to make some people during the hour of crisis.
Related articles:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060619/19gergen.htm
http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1481/build/g1481.pdf
http://www.servantleadership.org/resources/handm.php
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_13_40/ai_n16119054/pg_1
http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/98arq/reardon.pdf
People and their expectations from their job are changing and organizations’ should change along with it. More and more people are passionate about an organizations’ social responsibility and what an organizations’ stand is on a particular social issue; which can range from their views on diversity at work place, treating minorities to their efforts in reducing poverty around the globe. This is a micro trend that has been developed over a couple of years and organizations have been evolving to be in par with the current situation.
In the current scenario would it work to be a dictator leader? Mort Meyerson had this revelation after he left EDS and how the company though was very successful financially, but had done very little to uplift the lives of its employees. The organization had put too much pressure on the employees to increase their productivity in return for monetary gains and this had a very diverse effect on their personal and family lives.
So at Perot systems he didn’t want to heed this self destructive behavior of the organization where the best people wouldn’t want to work for the company and initiated some reform measures that included revamping the organizations’ culture into a more employee friendly one, providing training to the top leaders and also making those with abusive behaviors who couldn’t change their attitude by making them leave the company.
Finally after lot of change management efforts they were able to build a company that not only focused on economic and day-to-day business, but also concerned themselves with the well being of its employees and customers.
It’s been an age old idea that work is not the place where people bring their emotional problems. The idea has been changing now in some organizations and at the new reformed Perot Systems, employees where recognized as emotional beings with real personal issues. They were encouraged to work with their emotions and not against it. This a great thought considering the fact that people have real problems and it makes their life much easy to be able to work in a company that recognizes and supports the fact that they have a life outside work. This kind of culture has been successfully implemented in companies like Starbucks which has a high employee satisfaction rate and a very low turn over ratio.
The writer then talks about how the leadership has changed with the new organizational culture and how this change is for the betterment of the company. He moved from more of a dictator leader to a servant leader who puts the interest of the team and the company above any self interest. It’s about bringing the right people on the team, nurturing relationships and encouraging its people to grow and flourish in the organization. It’s not about pushing ones ideas over others but listening to their expert opinions and giving them a little autonomy over the way.
The writer argues that a leader as being someone who guides the team, but not who makes decisions for them. This is one aspect of the writer’s point that I couldn’t quite agree upon. A leader should be someone that people want to look up to; it’s someone you want to believe who makes the best judgment calls. So when people come with a difficult situation, it’s the job of the leader to help them make the right choice based on all the information available. It’s true that it’s not possible for a person to know everything, but with the right advisors and with the right people on the team, a leader should be making the ultimate decision call during a crisis rather than telling the employees that it’s not his job to make decisions for them. This will make the leader more respectful among the employees and as someone whom they could rely on during a difficult situation.
Mort Meyerson then moved on become a leader who is accessible all the time and through anyone in the company. This seems to be a nice notion as it shows that the company chief cares for even the people in the lower levels and it reinforces the original idea of having a culture that cares for its people. On the downside, it’s the responsibility of the employees to make sure that the leader is not swamped with unimportant requests and this is something to be considered as to how it can be achieved.
The leaders today have to be genuine; they should be able to understand psychology and understand themselves. It is not possible to manipulate and lead the team without showing compassion for their employees, customers and everything associated with the organization. The idea of being a servant leader seems to be idealized by the writer, but how feasible it is in today’s organization? With the ever changing and innovative organizations where new directions are constantly sought, it is not possible to make everyone happy. The organization wants someone who not only coaches the team, but also is rigid and gives orders when needed. So some balance should be sought on being nice to the people and being someone who can make great judgment calls irrespective of how uncomfortable it’s going to make some people during the hour of crisis.
Related articles:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060619/19gergen.htm
http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1481/build/g1481.pdf
http://www.servantleadership.org/resources/handm.php
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_13_40/ai_n16119054/pg_1
http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/98arq/reardon.pdf
Free Agent Nation - Fast Company - Cen (Mia) Zhao
Review: Free Agent Nation - (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/12/freeagent.html)
A new working style is grooming in this free land, USA: not work in the traditional office, not work at scheduled time, and not work for a affiliated organization. This new working style represents the freedom, independence and creativity. Article uses a lot of real examples to demonstrate three key rules: 1) “Freedom is the pathway to security, not a detour from it”, 2) “Work is personal”, and 3) “Work is fun”.
Is that true? My answer is “it depends”. Admittedly, in today’s society, especially in USA, people have enough right to choose what they want. The only limitation is yourself. Why do so many people refused to join the SOHO (small office/home office) group? Because they are afraid of losing the steady life: regular income, health insurance, fixed benefits or maybe a small social group (colleagues) in the company. These are all excuses. The ultimate reason is that people don’t want to change if they have already got a comfortable or tolerable life.
Let’s take a look at a example of change in this article: A few months ago I was working in the White House. Now I tell people I'm working in the Pink House, since my office is on the third floor of our compact home in Washington, DC. For many years, I'd held down a job -- often one that people considered a "good job." But I'd grown tired -- tired of politics in general and of office politics in particular, tired of doing assignments I didn't enjoy on a schedule I couldn't control, tired of wingtips that felt like vises and neckties that seemed like nooses, and most of all, tired of seeing my stunningly cute daughter only when she was asleep and her very attractive mom only when I was complaining.
Obviously, this guy changed his working style towards to freedom because he has been tired of the current work he was doing. The feeling of tired pushed him to change. Thus, he got rid of his “good job” that was considered by most of people.
So the question is: If people feel comfortable with current life, why do they need to change? What’s more, although a lot of examples here prove that the results of the change will be much better, for those who never experienced by themselves, they will not give their 100 percent trust because everything will be case by case.
For those people who are good at managing time and controlling themselves very well, free agent might be a way to lead them toward a better life. But for those who are not, I believe most part of people, free agent will not represents the “freedom” for them. Instead, there will be a nightmare of “uncontrolled life.” Consider a lot of people got sick right after they retired. Why? They don’t know how to kill their time without working normally. As myself for example, when during the summer vocation, it is easier for me get sick because I have an extremely irregular life. I can sleep till whatever I want and study or play till next morning. Things become worse once I feel totally free.
Every coin has its two sides. I really like the conception of “free agent nation”, which creates another choice for people who do not like the traditional way of working. But I believe the “truly free” is to let people choose whether they want to have this type of “free” or not.
More related readings recommended by me:
1. Striving for an Independently Harmonized Lifestyle, Taking an Opportunity of “The SOHO/Independent Workers Day”, By Masahiro Mizuno, http://www.businessforum.com/SOHO_01.html
2. If You're Thinking of Living In /SoHo; The Arts Give Way to Style and Fashion, By Peter Malbin, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E5D71E39F930A25755C0A96F958260
3. Create a Work Style for Life, http://www.thirdage.com/news/articles/ALT04/04/04/07/ALT04040407-01.html
4. How Your Work Style Affects Your Career Happiness, http://dbcs.typepad.com/lifeatwork/2006/03/_inspiration_fo.html
5. Understanding Work Style Differences, By Marie G. Mclntyre, Ph.D, http://www.yourofficecoach.com/Topics/work_style_differences.htm
A new working style is grooming in this free land, USA: not work in the traditional office, not work at scheduled time, and not work for a affiliated organization. This new working style represents the freedom, independence and creativity. Article uses a lot of real examples to demonstrate three key rules: 1) “Freedom is the pathway to security, not a detour from it”, 2) “Work is personal”, and 3) “Work is fun”.
Is that true? My answer is “it depends”. Admittedly, in today’s society, especially in USA, people have enough right to choose what they want. The only limitation is yourself. Why do so many people refused to join the SOHO (small office/home office) group? Because they are afraid of losing the steady life: regular income, health insurance, fixed benefits or maybe a small social group (colleagues) in the company. These are all excuses. The ultimate reason is that people don’t want to change if they have already got a comfortable or tolerable life.
Let’s take a look at a example of change in this article: A few months ago I was working in the White House. Now I tell people I'm working in the Pink House, since my office is on the third floor of our compact home in Washington, DC. For many years, I'd held down a job -- often one that people considered a "good job." But I'd grown tired -- tired of politics in general and of office politics in particular, tired of doing assignments I didn't enjoy on a schedule I couldn't control, tired of wingtips that felt like vises and neckties that seemed like nooses, and most of all, tired of seeing my stunningly cute daughter only when she was asleep and her very attractive mom only when I was complaining.
Obviously, this guy changed his working style towards to freedom because he has been tired of the current work he was doing. The feeling of tired pushed him to change. Thus, he got rid of his “good job” that was considered by most of people.
So the question is: If people feel comfortable with current life, why do they need to change? What’s more, although a lot of examples here prove that the results of the change will be much better, for those who never experienced by themselves, they will not give their 100 percent trust because everything will be case by case.
For those people who are good at managing time and controlling themselves very well, free agent might be a way to lead them toward a better life. But for those who are not, I believe most part of people, free agent will not represents the “freedom” for them. Instead, there will be a nightmare of “uncontrolled life.” Consider a lot of people got sick right after they retired. Why? They don’t know how to kill their time without working normally. As myself for example, when during the summer vocation, it is easier for me get sick because I have an extremely irregular life. I can sleep till whatever I want and study or play till next morning. Things become worse once I feel totally free.
Every coin has its two sides. I really like the conception of “free agent nation”, which creates another choice for people who do not like the traditional way of working. But I believe the “truly free” is to let people choose whether they want to have this type of “free” or not.
More related readings recommended by me:
1. Striving for an Independently Harmonized Lifestyle, Taking an Opportunity of “The SOHO/Independent Workers Day”, By Masahiro Mizuno, http://www.businessforum.com/SOHO_01.html
2. If You're Thinking of Living In /SoHo; The Arts Give Way to Style and Fashion, By Peter Malbin, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E5D71E39F930A25755C0A96F958260
3. Create a Work Style for Life, http://www.thirdage.com/news/articles/ALT04/04/04/07/ALT04040407-01.html
4. How Your Work Style Affects Your Career Happiness, http://dbcs.typepad.com/lifeatwork/2006/03/_inspiration_fo.html
5. Understanding Work Style Differences, By Marie G. Mclntyre, Ph.D, http://www.yourofficecoach.com/Topics/work_style_differences.htm
The Brand Called You – Fast Company – Rebecca M Allen
The Brand Called You – Fast Company – Tom Peters [http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/10/brandyou.html]
Description
According to Tom Peters, “it’s a new brand world” and in order to be professionally distinct you need to elect yourself CEO of Me Inc. and “establish your own micro equivalent of the Nike swoosh.” How else, Peters argues, are you going to stand out among colleagues with the same education and business credentials? In this energetic article packed with corporate slogans, Peters is reminiscent of a motivational speaker bouncing across a stage as he declares the key to growing your personal brand is to imitate the methods used in developing brand campaigns for companies. Brand yourself effectively and subsequently generate more opportunities for yourself, increase the chances of your organization’s success, and hold more bargaining power the next time you’re in line for a different position.
· Brand You vs. Brand X
Throw away your job title and description; don’t let those external descriptors classify who you are. Determine for yourself what separates Brand You from Brand X:
“…ask yourself the same question that brand managers at Nike, Coke, Pepsi, or the Body Shop ask themselves: What is it that my product or service does that
makes it different?”
Take the time to craft an answer to that question, and make it exclusive and succinct: an elevator pitch. Define your brand further by asking yourself other questions. What would your colleagues say is your biggest strength? What is your value-add? In the “feature-benefit model” that marketers use, what unique benefits do your product’s features provide? Peters urges you to ask yourself, “What do I want to be famous for?”
· Don’t Sell the Steak, Sell the Sizzle: Enhance Your Visibility
Companies rely on television and print ads to increase visibility, but what can you do? Your personal branding campaign will succeed via “word-of-mouth marketing.” Use your talent, whether it is speaking, teaching, or writing, to take on extra projects that “showcase your skills.” Remember that “your network…is the most important marketing vehicle you’ve got.”
Don’t forget that the value of your brand is always being judged: “Everything you do – and everything you choose not to do – communicates…character of the brand.” Even small, seemingly inconsequential exchanges via phone or email represent Brand You. “Nurture your network of colleagues – consciously.”
· Project Power
Convey the kind of power that betters your reputation and boosts your influence. Consumers are attracted to corporate brands that project power, and your peers will be drawn to you if you can harness power to your benefit. Power is dependent on perception: “If you want people to see you as a powerful brand, act like a credible leader.” Take credit for your “braggables.” Replace your “old-fashioned résumé” – replete with its stale job titles and descriptions – with a “marketing brochure,” which highlights mastered skills and delivered projects.
· Loyalty to Yourself
Peters acknowledges the importance of being loyal to your colleagues, team, project, and customers but also cautions that “being CEO of Me Inc. requires you to act selfishly.” Through promoting yourself, you benefit the organization you work for as well. Arrange a review group and solicit feedback on your work.
· Continuously Reinvent Me Inc.
In addition to forgetting job titles and foregoing the traditional résumé, Peters suggests letting go of any desire to move up the corporate ladder. Instead, see your career path as a series of projects on a checkerboard. Write a mission statement for Me Inc. and “search relentlessly for job or project opportunities that fit.” Review your mission statement regularly and revise as necessary. Ask yourself: “What’s [my] personal definition of success?”
Discussion
In the second to last paragraph of The Brand Called You, Peters asserts the importance of being “a great teammate and a supportive colleague…an exceptional expert at something that has real value…a broad-gauged visionary – a leader… [and] a businessperson…obsessed with pragmatic outcomes.” It’s unfortunate that these qualities were tucked away, almost as an afterthought, at the end of the article. This is because without them, any attempt at personal branding will only take one so far in their career before the carefully crafted packaging falls down around them.
It’s easy, and even logical, for Peters to advocate personal branding as an offshoot of corporate branding due to the nature of modern marketing campaigns. In order to sell their product, companies have learned to sell something much more alluring to consumers: ideas. Naomi Klein, activist and author, was featured in the Fast Company article No-Brands-Land and presents a contrasting point of view:
“Though advertising might suggest that Apple is selling iconoclasm, not computers – or that Benetton is selling progressive politics, not sweaters – Klein begs to differ. In fact, Apple is selling computers, and Benetton is selling sweaters.”[1]
This simple statement actually holds a lot of power for individuals that want to brand themselves. The same creativity that sells the “Starbucks Experience” can be effectively applied in the development of one’s professional image. However, the skepticism that can be directed at corporate marketing campaigns can also correlate with personal branding. Said Klein, in reference to corporate advertising: “…I think that if you’re actually selling what you’re claiming to sell, then it’s fine. I have a problem when there is a betrayal in the message.”[1] No matter how many lustrous claims you make in your “marketing brochure,” sooner or later you’ll be expected to substantiate them with results. Don’t turn your personal slogan into “Talk is Cheap.”
When asked to comment on The Brand Called You, Klein addressed what is probably the most alarming selling point of the article:
“Being a brand teaches you to turn every part of yourself into a marketable product: You’re looking for your ‘braggables’ and for what people can do for you. But ultimately, that’s isolating. In point of fact, you’re not a company – you’re a member of society.”[1]
Klein appears wary of the “every man for himself” tone that is revealed in parts of Peters’ article, which stands out as an American perspective of individualism. It’s not a coincidence that Ayn Rand’s 1957 book Atlas Shrugged, famously known for its “glorification of the right of individuals to live entirely for their own interest” is considered “one of the most influential business books ever written” in American culture.[2] In some business literature, U.S. companies are recognized as prioritizing the bottom line and rewarding “individual job-hopping employees”[3] for specialized skills, whereas Asian and European companies are said to “place a high value on employee commitment”[4] and recognize the value of knowledge sharing “between people rather than being confined”[3] to individual workers.
While glorifying individuals brings successes, it’s questionable whether it is sustainable as an ongoing practice. This can be applied to both corporations and personal branding philosophies. There is a difference between ruthless self-promotion and appropriately honoring your accomplishments, and finding a delicate balance between the two can be a tricky business.
Conclusion
It’s worth mentioning that The Brand Called You was written in 1997, and Tom Peters was one of the first to present the notion of personal branding. Google wasn’t launched until 1999, and social networking sites that are current household names were unheard of a decade ago.[5] Although Peters discusses the necessity of professional email communications, he was unable to address the phenomenon of having an extensive online presence that is quite commonplace today. In a world where “83 percent of recruiters use search engines to learn about candidates” and “43 percent of recruiters have eliminated candidates based on information they found online,” giving attention to personal branding is perhaps much more important and relevant today than it was ten years ago.[6] The following articles discuss personal branding in the Information Age:
· Arruda, W., & Dixson, K. (2007, July 9). How to build the ‘brand called you’ in an online era. Advertising Age, 78(27), 28.
William Arruda and Kirsten Dixson are authors of the 2007 book Career Distinction: Stand Out by Building Your Brand. This brief article describes five tips for personal branding and managing your online identity.
· Arruda, W., & Dixson, K. (2007, October 1). Managing your reputation online. CIO. http://www.cio.com/article/142550/Managing_Your_Reputation_Online/
This longer article by Arruda and Dixson introduces “The Scale of Digital Distinctness.” Are you “Digitally Disguised” (no mention of you anywhere on the web), “Digitally Dissed” (search engine results bring negative publicity), “Digitally Disastrous” (too many hits, but none actually refer to you), “Digitally Dabbling” (there’s just a little bit of information that supports your brand), or “Digitally Distinct” (the goal: lots of results that reinforce your brand)?
· Coutu, D. (2007, June). We googled you. Harvard Business Review, 37-47.
This HBR case study asks what you would do as a hiring manager who discovers controversial information about a talented applicant.
· Marasco, C.A. (2007, July 30). Tips for building your brand identity. Chemical & Engineering News, 85(31), 252-253.
This article describes five tips for personal branding. Most noteworthy is number four: “Use the Web to your advantage.” If you don’t have time to maintain a blog, you could create a personal website or become more active in online forums that are geared toward professionals in your field.
· Murphy, N. (2007, August 23). Seven tips for creating an effective video résumé. CIO. http://www.cio.com/article/132751/Seven_Tips_for_Creating_an_Effective_Video_Resume
Whether or not you’ll ever be asked for a video résumé when applying for a job, there can be great value in creating one anyway. Watching the playback of your delivery can show how you appear to those around you.
I googled myself on a whim after reading the articles and was shocked when, for the first time ever, I actually found myself (my name is really common). Furthermore, it was the first couple of hits due to our class blog. It appears as if hiding from Google is impossible, and it’s up to me to responsibly portray myself in a positive manner online. Why fight it? It’s inevitable, and I look forward to carefully cultivating my online presence more in the future (without the swoosh).
References
1. Sittenfeld, C. (2000, August). No-brands-land. Fast Company, 38, 236. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/38/nklein.html
2. Rubin, H. (2007, September 15). Ayn Rand’s literature of capitalism. New York Times. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5070&en=31b9b0588c33df2c&ex=1190606400&emc=eta1
3. Hampden-Turner, C. (1991, September-October). The boundaries of business: The cross-cultural quagmire. Harvard Business Review, 94-96.
4. Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000, May-June). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 133-141.
5. www.hoovers.com
6. Arruda, W., & Dixson, K. (2007, October 1). Managing your reputation online. CIO. Retrieved from October 13, 2007, from http://www.cio.com/article/142550/Managing_Your_Reputation_Online/
Description
According to Tom Peters, “it’s a new brand world” and in order to be professionally distinct you need to elect yourself CEO of Me Inc. and “establish your own micro equivalent of the Nike swoosh.” How else, Peters argues, are you going to stand out among colleagues with the same education and business credentials? In this energetic article packed with corporate slogans, Peters is reminiscent of a motivational speaker bouncing across a stage as he declares the key to growing your personal brand is to imitate the methods used in developing brand campaigns for companies. Brand yourself effectively and subsequently generate more opportunities for yourself, increase the chances of your organization’s success, and hold more bargaining power the next time you’re in line for a different position.
· Brand You vs. Brand X
Throw away your job title and description; don’t let those external descriptors classify who you are. Determine for yourself what separates Brand You from Brand X:
“…ask yourself the same question that brand managers at Nike, Coke, Pepsi, or the Body Shop ask themselves: What is it that my product or service does that
makes it different?”
Take the time to craft an answer to that question, and make it exclusive and succinct: an elevator pitch. Define your brand further by asking yourself other questions. What would your colleagues say is your biggest strength? What is your value-add? In the “feature-benefit model” that marketers use, what unique benefits do your product’s features provide? Peters urges you to ask yourself, “What do I want to be famous for?”
· Don’t Sell the Steak, Sell the Sizzle: Enhance Your Visibility
Companies rely on television and print ads to increase visibility, but what can you do? Your personal branding campaign will succeed via “word-of-mouth marketing.” Use your talent, whether it is speaking, teaching, or writing, to take on extra projects that “showcase your skills.” Remember that “your network…is the most important marketing vehicle you’ve got.”
Don’t forget that the value of your brand is always being judged: “Everything you do – and everything you choose not to do – communicates…character of the brand.” Even small, seemingly inconsequential exchanges via phone or email represent Brand You. “Nurture your network of colleagues – consciously.”
· Project Power
Convey the kind of power that betters your reputation and boosts your influence. Consumers are attracted to corporate brands that project power, and your peers will be drawn to you if you can harness power to your benefit. Power is dependent on perception: “If you want people to see you as a powerful brand, act like a credible leader.” Take credit for your “braggables.” Replace your “old-fashioned résumé” – replete with its stale job titles and descriptions – with a “marketing brochure,” which highlights mastered skills and delivered projects.
· Loyalty to Yourself
Peters acknowledges the importance of being loyal to your colleagues, team, project, and customers but also cautions that “being CEO of Me Inc. requires you to act selfishly.” Through promoting yourself, you benefit the organization you work for as well. Arrange a review group and solicit feedback on your work.
· Continuously Reinvent Me Inc.
In addition to forgetting job titles and foregoing the traditional résumé, Peters suggests letting go of any desire to move up the corporate ladder. Instead, see your career path as a series of projects on a checkerboard. Write a mission statement for Me Inc. and “search relentlessly for job or project opportunities that fit.” Review your mission statement regularly and revise as necessary. Ask yourself: “What’s [my] personal definition of success?”
Discussion
In the second to last paragraph of The Brand Called You, Peters asserts the importance of being “a great teammate and a supportive colleague…an exceptional expert at something that has real value…a broad-gauged visionary – a leader… [and] a businessperson…obsessed with pragmatic outcomes.” It’s unfortunate that these qualities were tucked away, almost as an afterthought, at the end of the article. This is because without them, any attempt at personal branding will only take one so far in their career before the carefully crafted packaging falls down around them.
It’s easy, and even logical, for Peters to advocate personal branding as an offshoot of corporate branding due to the nature of modern marketing campaigns. In order to sell their product, companies have learned to sell something much more alluring to consumers: ideas. Naomi Klein, activist and author, was featured in the Fast Company article No-Brands-Land and presents a contrasting point of view:
“Though advertising might suggest that Apple is selling iconoclasm, not computers – or that Benetton is selling progressive politics, not sweaters – Klein begs to differ. In fact, Apple is selling computers, and Benetton is selling sweaters.”[1]
This simple statement actually holds a lot of power for individuals that want to brand themselves. The same creativity that sells the “Starbucks Experience” can be effectively applied in the development of one’s professional image. However, the skepticism that can be directed at corporate marketing campaigns can also correlate with personal branding. Said Klein, in reference to corporate advertising: “…I think that if you’re actually selling what you’re claiming to sell, then it’s fine. I have a problem when there is a betrayal in the message.”[1] No matter how many lustrous claims you make in your “marketing brochure,” sooner or later you’ll be expected to substantiate them with results. Don’t turn your personal slogan into “Talk is Cheap.”
When asked to comment on The Brand Called You, Klein addressed what is probably the most alarming selling point of the article:
“Being a brand teaches you to turn every part of yourself into a marketable product: You’re looking for your ‘braggables’ and for what people can do for you. But ultimately, that’s isolating. In point of fact, you’re not a company – you’re a member of society.”[1]
Klein appears wary of the “every man for himself” tone that is revealed in parts of Peters’ article, which stands out as an American perspective of individualism. It’s not a coincidence that Ayn Rand’s 1957 book Atlas Shrugged, famously known for its “glorification of the right of individuals to live entirely for their own interest” is considered “one of the most influential business books ever written” in American culture.[2] In some business literature, U.S. companies are recognized as prioritizing the bottom line and rewarding “individual job-hopping employees”[3] for specialized skills, whereas Asian and European companies are said to “place a high value on employee commitment”[4] and recognize the value of knowledge sharing “between people rather than being confined”[3] to individual workers.
While glorifying individuals brings successes, it’s questionable whether it is sustainable as an ongoing practice. This can be applied to both corporations and personal branding philosophies. There is a difference between ruthless self-promotion and appropriately honoring your accomplishments, and finding a delicate balance between the two can be a tricky business.
Conclusion
It’s worth mentioning that The Brand Called You was written in 1997, and Tom Peters was one of the first to present the notion of personal branding. Google wasn’t launched until 1999, and social networking sites that are current household names were unheard of a decade ago.[5] Although Peters discusses the necessity of professional email communications, he was unable to address the phenomenon of having an extensive online presence that is quite commonplace today. In a world where “83 percent of recruiters use search engines to learn about candidates” and “43 percent of recruiters have eliminated candidates based on information they found online,” giving attention to personal branding is perhaps much more important and relevant today than it was ten years ago.[6] The following articles discuss personal branding in the Information Age:
· Arruda, W., & Dixson, K. (2007, July 9). How to build the ‘brand called you’ in an online era. Advertising Age, 78(27), 28.
William Arruda and Kirsten Dixson are authors of the 2007 book Career Distinction: Stand Out by Building Your Brand. This brief article describes five tips for personal branding and managing your online identity.
· Arruda, W., & Dixson, K. (2007, October 1). Managing your reputation online. CIO. http://www.cio.com/article/142550/Managing_Your_Reputation_Online/
This longer article by Arruda and Dixson introduces “The Scale of Digital Distinctness.” Are you “Digitally Disguised” (no mention of you anywhere on the web), “Digitally Dissed” (search engine results bring negative publicity), “Digitally Disastrous” (too many hits, but none actually refer to you), “Digitally Dabbling” (there’s just a little bit of information that supports your brand), or “Digitally Distinct” (the goal: lots of results that reinforce your brand)?
· Coutu, D. (2007, June). We googled you. Harvard Business Review, 37-47.
This HBR case study asks what you would do as a hiring manager who discovers controversial information about a talented applicant.
· Marasco, C.A. (2007, July 30). Tips for building your brand identity. Chemical & Engineering News, 85(31), 252-253.
This article describes five tips for personal branding. Most noteworthy is number four: “Use the Web to your advantage.” If you don’t have time to maintain a blog, you could create a personal website or become more active in online forums that are geared toward professionals in your field.
· Murphy, N. (2007, August 23). Seven tips for creating an effective video résumé. CIO. http://www.cio.com/article/132751/Seven_Tips_for_Creating_an_Effective_Video_Resume
Whether or not you’ll ever be asked for a video résumé when applying for a job, there can be great value in creating one anyway. Watching the playback of your delivery can show how you appear to those around you.
I googled myself on a whim after reading the articles and was shocked when, for the first time ever, I actually found myself (my name is really common). Furthermore, it was the first couple of hits due to our class blog. It appears as if hiding from Google is impossible, and it’s up to me to responsibly portray myself in a positive manner online. Why fight it? It’s inevitable, and I look forward to carefully cultivating my online presence more in the future (without the swoosh).
References
1. Sittenfeld, C. (2000, August). No-brands-land. Fast Company, 38, 236. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/38/nklein.html
2. Rubin, H. (2007, September 15). Ayn Rand’s literature of capitalism. New York Times. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5070&en=31b9b0588c33df2c&ex=1190606400&emc=eta1
3. Hampden-Turner, C. (1991, September-October). The boundaries of business: The cross-cultural quagmire. Harvard Business Review, 94-96.
4. Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000, May-June). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 133-141.
5. www.hoovers.com
6. Arruda, W., & Dixson, K. (2007, October 1). Managing your reputation online. CIO. Retrieved from October 13, 2007, from http://www.cio.com/article/142550/Managing_Your_Reputation_Online/
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Genius at Work- Fast Company- Manaswita
Genius at Work (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/17/genius.html) is the story of one man, about his perseverance, assiduousness and about his faith that he can change the world and he can change the lives of desolated kids and adults living in the downtrodden urban areas of America. Bill Strickland, the President & the CEO of Manchester Craftsman’s Guild (MCG) and Bidwell Training Center (BTC), is known to the world as a diligent social entrepreneur and has made a difference in the lives of hundreds of adults and children. He transformed a nearly bankrupt community in Pittsburgh into one of the most successful organizations in the world. His everlasting journey of bringing social change by combining his knack for arts and his flair for entrepreneurship started with the “lump of clay” when he was a 16 year old kid, in the crumbling Pittsburgh neighborhood.
At the age of 16, when Bill was in school he knew he was at-risk and very badly wanted his way out. There was a light at the end of the dark tunnel in the form of Frank Ross, the ceramics teacher who became Bill’s mentor in pottery making for 20 years. Through his new found charm for pottery and art, Bill found his way to bring social changes and from there onwards started the commendable and inspiring journey of this great social entrepreneur.
How he related art and entrepreneurship?
He believes that “artists are by nature entrepreneurs, they’re just not called that”. In 1968 when racial polarization was increasing in the United States, Bill believed in his mantra and for social cause, while still in college, he founded the Manchester Craftsman’s Guild (MCG) for teaching pottery skills to children at-risks, after school. His goal was not profit making, it was not to contribute to the economic growth either and he was supported by local churches, community leaders for funds in his (one man’s) pursuit to change the world. After three years he was entrusted to rebuild the Bidwell Training Center (BTC), a vocational training institute on the verge of getting closed. Bill saw it as an opportunity to build the community and provide social services as on the one end he had at-risk kids at MCG, getting trained in pottery skills with the hope to use this skill to get into the college. On the other end, he had adults at BTC who were abandoned by the society and wanted to start their life again. BTC even trains out of work adults for the pharmaceutical companies and everyone who goes through the training becomes certified and gets the job.
He worked on both MCG and BTC programs and later wanted to give new dimensions to them. He opened a 62, 000 square foot community-learning center by raising funds from foundations, government organizations and community leader.
Art of Learning at MCG classroom:
Bill Strickland’s mission is to get the at-risk school kids to college by making them realize what they want out of life. Some kids get trained from MCG and get employed by leading companies and some find their way into college. Bill believes that artists can make good entrepreneurs as they are imaginative and can see or imagine what others fail to and that is what MCG teaches students at classrooms- to imagine and visualize. Any project starts with the discussion of a fable followed by the moral of the story. Students watch videos on the fable and then are inspired to write their own fable with focus on moral of the story. Then the students are asked to give a creative touch to their fable by constructing puppets or paintings or ceramics. This is the creative phase of learning at MCG.
Discussion:
Bill Strickland gets standing ovation wherever he goes for his principles and his vision. Once he was addressing 145 leaders of non-profit organizations from America and Europe at the Harvard Business School and he said “If this country has a future, it's because of you guys, because of your ability to form visions and to form partnerships. I believe that we can change the United States of America in my lifetime, and I'm not out of my mind. We've got to change the way this country sees itself." [pg. 2, http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/17/genius.html]
What struck me most in this article is that there is another aspect of change management apart from what we discuss usually in class or with our peers. The senior executives in giant companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Google etc have a simple goal for themselves and their company when they talk of change management or of restructuring their strategic plans: the goal is stability in the market. They want to make a little more than the predictable earnings or they want to be ahead of their arch-competitors.
Amidst the changing strategies of fierce and aggressive profit making organizations, we usually tend to forget about social enterprises and non-profit making organizations and the leaders of “social change” such as Bill Strickland, Michael Young and Muhammad Yunus and their other counterparts. People like them used the principles of change management neither to make profit nor to be the part of the endless, pointless pursuit of meeting the target. They used strategic plans to bring social change, to cater to the deprived and underprivileged sections of society in the least possible resources and generate enough volunteer resources. Peter Drucker, the Management Guru once said, “the non-profit organizations exist to bring about a change in individuals”.
There is a lot of planning and communication involved in the functioning of not-for profit organizations. First there has to be a reason for their existence followed by the goals and then the need to market themselves to acquire funds. A good communication between the leader and volunteers is important as the volunteers work not for salary but for their self satisfaction and if they are not satisfied with the goals, mission statement and the desired results then they might see their efforts go in vain. So, a leader of the not for profit organization has to be the motivator for his volunteers because in a social enterprise career growth and pay package are insignificant and non existent.
Social entrepreneurs act like change catalysts by trying to create new solutions to wipe off poverty, unemployment, racism etc from face of the world and alleviate the unfavorable conditions of life in a community and make it a better place to live in, the way business entrepreneurs use their innovative ideas to bring changes in the industry. I believe that even though the social entrepreneurs carry their different vision and mission statement than the business entrepreneurs, both their existence is mutual. For eg., when Strickland made 350 seat jazz concert hall he had a unique plan for live music. The live music was recorded and the pressing was done by Sony Disc Manufacturing. Another example would be of SKS Microfinance in India which has joined hands with Visa International to develop an efficient Point of Sale device for the recording of business transactions. It is looked-for to make this existence more communal in the future.
Who do you think would be thinking of the people in impoverished parts of the world, with less than one dollar of income per day, living in quagmire of malnutrition, poverty, illiteracy and unemployment when the senior executives at Microsoft Game Studios are planning on the release of the next generation of game console for the privileged ones? As I was reading this article it reminded me of the lyrics from Michael Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror”- “If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make a change”.
Related Articles:
http://www.bill-strickland.org/
Inc.com What One Man Can Do. Published September 2005
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050901/bill-strickland.html
What is social entrepreneurship?
http://www.pbs.org/opb/thenewheroes/whatis/
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship
How to change the world
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/09/social-entrepre.html
At the age of 16, when Bill was in school he knew he was at-risk and very badly wanted his way out. There was a light at the end of the dark tunnel in the form of Frank Ross, the ceramics teacher who became Bill’s mentor in pottery making for 20 years. Through his new found charm for pottery and art, Bill found his way to bring social changes and from there onwards started the commendable and inspiring journey of this great social entrepreneur.
How he related art and entrepreneurship?
He believes that “artists are by nature entrepreneurs, they’re just not called that”. In 1968 when racial polarization was increasing in the United States, Bill believed in his mantra and for social cause, while still in college, he founded the Manchester Craftsman’s Guild (MCG) for teaching pottery skills to children at-risks, after school. His goal was not profit making, it was not to contribute to the economic growth either and he was supported by local churches, community leaders for funds in his (one man’s) pursuit to change the world. After three years he was entrusted to rebuild the Bidwell Training Center (BTC), a vocational training institute on the verge of getting closed. Bill saw it as an opportunity to build the community and provide social services as on the one end he had at-risk kids at MCG, getting trained in pottery skills with the hope to use this skill to get into the college. On the other end, he had adults at BTC who were abandoned by the society and wanted to start their life again. BTC even trains out of work adults for the pharmaceutical companies and everyone who goes through the training becomes certified and gets the job.
He worked on both MCG and BTC programs and later wanted to give new dimensions to them. He opened a 62, 000 square foot community-learning center by raising funds from foundations, government organizations and community leader.
Art of Learning at MCG classroom:
Bill Strickland’s mission is to get the at-risk school kids to college by making them realize what they want out of life. Some kids get trained from MCG and get employed by leading companies and some find their way into college. Bill believes that artists can make good entrepreneurs as they are imaginative and can see or imagine what others fail to and that is what MCG teaches students at classrooms- to imagine and visualize. Any project starts with the discussion of a fable followed by the moral of the story. Students watch videos on the fable and then are inspired to write their own fable with focus on moral of the story. Then the students are asked to give a creative touch to their fable by constructing puppets or paintings or ceramics. This is the creative phase of learning at MCG.
Discussion:
Bill Strickland gets standing ovation wherever he goes for his principles and his vision. Once he was addressing 145 leaders of non-profit organizations from America and Europe at the Harvard Business School and he said “If this country has a future, it's because of you guys, because of your ability to form visions and to form partnerships. I believe that we can change the United States of America in my lifetime, and I'm not out of my mind. We've got to change the way this country sees itself." [pg. 2, http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/17/genius.html]
What struck me most in this article is that there is another aspect of change management apart from what we discuss usually in class or with our peers. The senior executives in giant companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Google etc have a simple goal for themselves and their company when they talk of change management or of restructuring their strategic plans: the goal is stability in the market. They want to make a little more than the predictable earnings or they want to be ahead of their arch-competitors.
Amidst the changing strategies of fierce and aggressive profit making organizations, we usually tend to forget about social enterprises and non-profit making organizations and the leaders of “social change” such as Bill Strickland, Michael Young and Muhammad Yunus and their other counterparts. People like them used the principles of change management neither to make profit nor to be the part of the endless, pointless pursuit of meeting the target. They used strategic plans to bring social change, to cater to the deprived and underprivileged sections of society in the least possible resources and generate enough volunteer resources. Peter Drucker, the Management Guru once said, “the non-profit organizations exist to bring about a change in individuals”.
There is a lot of planning and communication involved in the functioning of not-for profit organizations. First there has to be a reason for their existence followed by the goals and then the need to market themselves to acquire funds. A good communication between the leader and volunteers is important as the volunteers work not for salary but for their self satisfaction and if they are not satisfied with the goals, mission statement and the desired results then they might see their efforts go in vain. So, a leader of the not for profit organization has to be the motivator for his volunteers because in a social enterprise career growth and pay package are insignificant and non existent.
Social entrepreneurs act like change catalysts by trying to create new solutions to wipe off poverty, unemployment, racism etc from face of the world and alleviate the unfavorable conditions of life in a community and make it a better place to live in, the way business entrepreneurs use their innovative ideas to bring changes in the industry. I believe that even though the social entrepreneurs carry their different vision and mission statement than the business entrepreneurs, both their existence is mutual. For eg., when Strickland made 350 seat jazz concert hall he had a unique plan for live music. The live music was recorded and the pressing was done by Sony Disc Manufacturing. Another example would be of SKS Microfinance in India which has joined hands with Visa International to develop an efficient Point of Sale device for the recording of business transactions. It is looked-for to make this existence more communal in the future.
Who do you think would be thinking of the people in impoverished parts of the world, with less than one dollar of income per day, living in quagmire of malnutrition, poverty, illiteracy and unemployment when the senior executives at Microsoft Game Studios are planning on the release of the next generation of game console for the privileged ones? As I was reading this article it reminded me of the lyrics from Michael Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror”- “If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make a change”.
Related Articles:
http://www.bill-strickland.org/
Inc.com What One Man Can Do. Published September 2005
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050901/bill-strickland.html
What is social entrepreneurship?
http://www.pbs.org/opb/thenewheroes/whatis/
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship
How to change the world
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/09/social-entrepre.html
Friday, October 12, 2007
Fred Bigjim - Reflection
In class on Wednesday October 10, the point of not responding to others when angry or in a defensive manner, and the point that one should be conscious of the medium for which one communicates in today’s world of instant information where what you say or write could directly or indirectly result in potential organizational wide repercussions, were briefly addressed. Unlike some of the other points discussed in class, I thought these two were so obvious, so why even discuss them. If nothing else I thought them to be examples of poor judgment that young employees would most likely make out of ignorance - not something a team leader would be prone to do even by accident, let alone intentionally.
However, there is what I find to be a very interesting article in the current issue of Entertainment Weekly that not only reflects examples of those two points, but also presents how drastic the results can be to an organization when they do occur.
The article is titled “Can there be peace in Middle-Earth?” and it covers how the pre-production for the next installment of the billion dollar movie franchise for New Line Cinema, The Lord of the Rings, is still currently on hold. At the center of the story are the two visionaries that drove the franchise, Peter Jackson the director, and Bob Shaye the co-chair of New Line Cinema. What each man did was they both posted comments onto online fan sites concerning the continuation of the franchise during a time when both parties involved were in the process of negotiating a new partnership to make two more movies based on the book The Hobbit. Both men posted at a time when their negotiation stage was tense. One aftermath result from those posts is that their negotiations over another potential billion dollar project came to a standstill.
When the two men created the franchise in the late 1990’s they both shared the same vision of using new computer based special effect technology to accomplish something that many skeptics believed could not be successfully done – adapt the J.R.R. Tolkien books into a profitable movie franchise. The innovative approach that was applied to producing the films worked. The films were shot one after another to keep the over head production costs down while focusing the spectacle on new digital effects as opposed to relying on high priced actors and traditional special effects to attract box office ticket buyers. Both concepts went against the traditional way most Hollywood blockbusters are made. The result of this shared vision was the franchise generated approximately six billion dollars in combined global ticket sales and merchandise product sales (including dvds, video games, shirts, posters, and countless of other tie in products). Both men benefited from the success of the franchise. Peter Jackson (prior to the franchise was an obscure director) is now extremely wealthy and is now considered a first class Oscar winning director. Bob Shaye’s New Line Cinema (which he co-founded forty years ago) reinvented itself into a more main stream production company which has allowed it to attract more high profile projects.
According to the article in January of 2007, Peter Jackson reacted defensively against Bob Shaye concerning how he believed he was being treated. Jackson posted a memo onto the OneRing.net site addressing how he was being fired from the project. In response, Bob Shaye defensively posted negative comments about Jackson on the Sci Fi Wire website. Both posts were read by fans and media from around the world and what had been a negotiation stage turned into a huge problem for Time Warner (parent company of New Line Cinema). After both men read over what the other had posted about him they both immediately ceased their negotiations over The Hobbit, thus, placing the billion dollar franchise for the Jackson, New Line and Time Warner organizations on hold. Even though the relationship between both men had been tense and questionable up to this point, it is believed that it was the manner in which they each publicly posted about each other that brought the talks for this project to a halt.
Both men threw caution to the wind and have jeopardized a potential billion dollar project by basically disregarding the two points which were addressed in class. They both responded defensively when they were angry and they both appear to not have considered the ramifications that their postings would result in (they have both been in a state of backtracking and trying to better explain what they “meant to say” ever since). By putting the negotiations for this project on hold because of those mistakes the future of the entire franchise has remained in an uncertain state of limbo for almost a year. A franchise which was scheduled to be in the planning stage by now because of the issues concerning the film rights to the book. According to the article the contract rights are up in 2008 and that Time Warner has been working with third parties over the past ten months (attorneys, agents, publicists, managers, mediators, etc.) in an attempt to put the negotiations back on track in order to meet that contractual deadline.
This is an example of anxiety and urgency for the future of the franchise. It is also an example of two strong leadership personalities in conflict. Both of whom are “A team” leaders in their own right as far as the teams they lead. They both have relevant knowledge of what the project involves from their prior success on the Lord of the Rings. They both have the appropriate skills as visionaries to accomplish what few others in their industry are capable of doing (bringing Tolkien to life on film). They both have strong leadership capabilities, Jackson as the director and Shaye as the producer as far as bringing together the proper creative talent for the project. They both have organizational credibility from their past accomplishment and how profitable it was. They both have formal authority, Shaye with the ability to make it happen financially and Jackson with his creative talent. They both know how to handle organizational change within the entertainment industry by embracing new technology to achieve their visions.
What they do not appear to have at the moment is trust and this appears to have been the case ever since their posting. Together both men were a great team as far as creating a billion dollar franchise is concerned. However, that was back when they trusted each other. I think this story is a perfect example of why trustworthiness is not overrated. Quite possibly if there had still been trust between these two former team members than they may not have made the two mistakes of posting online to the entire world while they were also momentarily upset with each other. The article implies that their original distrust stemmed over money – approximately several million dollars, which essentially escalated into where they are now – on the verge of ending the entire project. If the project does end for them it will result in a potential combined loss of over a billion of dollars to the organizations involved. So again from this extreme example (even though it may not be a traditional business example as far as board room executive trust is concerned) I believe that trust is definitely not overrated and when trust between organizational leaders is abused or broken, or temporarily discarded in moments of anger it has the potential to escalate into situations that can both directly and indirectly create problems for an organization at a variety of levels.
References:
Class slides from 10/08/07 and class discussion from 10/10/07
Svetkey, Benjamin. (2007, October 12). Can there be peace in Middle-Earth? Entertainment Weekly, #958, 28-36.
However, there is what I find to be a very interesting article in the current issue of Entertainment Weekly that not only reflects examples of those two points, but also presents how drastic the results can be to an organization when they do occur.
The article is titled “Can there be peace in Middle-Earth?” and it covers how the pre-production for the next installment of the billion dollar movie franchise for New Line Cinema, The Lord of the Rings, is still currently on hold. At the center of the story are the two visionaries that drove the franchise, Peter Jackson the director, and Bob Shaye the co-chair of New Line Cinema. What each man did was they both posted comments onto online fan sites concerning the continuation of the franchise during a time when both parties involved were in the process of negotiating a new partnership to make two more movies based on the book The Hobbit. Both men posted at a time when their negotiation stage was tense. One aftermath result from those posts is that their negotiations over another potential billion dollar project came to a standstill.
When the two men created the franchise in the late 1990’s they both shared the same vision of using new computer based special effect technology to accomplish something that many skeptics believed could not be successfully done – adapt the J.R.R. Tolkien books into a profitable movie franchise. The innovative approach that was applied to producing the films worked. The films were shot one after another to keep the over head production costs down while focusing the spectacle on new digital effects as opposed to relying on high priced actors and traditional special effects to attract box office ticket buyers. Both concepts went against the traditional way most Hollywood blockbusters are made. The result of this shared vision was the franchise generated approximately six billion dollars in combined global ticket sales and merchandise product sales (including dvds, video games, shirts, posters, and countless of other tie in products). Both men benefited from the success of the franchise. Peter Jackson (prior to the franchise was an obscure director) is now extremely wealthy and is now considered a first class Oscar winning director. Bob Shaye’s New Line Cinema (which he co-founded forty years ago) reinvented itself into a more main stream production company which has allowed it to attract more high profile projects.
According to the article in January of 2007, Peter Jackson reacted defensively against Bob Shaye concerning how he believed he was being treated. Jackson posted a memo onto the OneRing.net site addressing how he was being fired from the project. In response, Bob Shaye defensively posted negative comments about Jackson on the Sci Fi Wire website. Both posts were read by fans and media from around the world and what had been a negotiation stage turned into a huge problem for Time Warner (parent company of New Line Cinema). After both men read over what the other had posted about him they both immediately ceased their negotiations over The Hobbit, thus, placing the billion dollar franchise for the Jackson, New Line and Time Warner organizations on hold. Even though the relationship between both men had been tense and questionable up to this point, it is believed that it was the manner in which they each publicly posted about each other that brought the talks for this project to a halt.
Both men threw caution to the wind and have jeopardized a potential billion dollar project by basically disregarding the two points which were addressed in class. They both responded defensively when they were angry and they both appear to not have considered the ramifications that their postings would result in (they have both been in a state of backtracking and trying to better explain what they “meant to say” ever since). By putting the negotiations for this project on hold because of those mistakes the future of the entire franchise has remained in an uncertain state of limbo for almost a year. A franchise which was scheduled to be in the planning stage by now because of the issues concerning the film rights to the book. According to the article the contract rights are up in 2008 and that Time Warner has been working with third parties over the past ten months (attorneys, agents, publicists, managers, mediators, etc.) in an attempt to put the negotiations back on track in order to meet that contractual deadline.
This is an example of anxiety and urgency for the future of the franchise. It is also an example of two strong leadership personalities in conflict. Both of whom are “A team” leaders in their own right as far as the teams they lead. They both have relevant knowledge of what the project involves from their prior success on the Lord of the Rings. They both have the appropriate skills as visionaries to accomplish what few others in their industry are capable of doing (bringing Tolkien to life on film). They both have strong leadership capabilities, Jackson as the director and Shaye as the producer as far as bringing together the proper creative talent for the project. They both have organizational credibility from their past accomplishment and how profitable it was. They both have formal authority, Shaye with the ability to make it happen financially and Jackson with his creative talent. They both know how to handle organizational change within the entertainment industry by embracing new technology to achieve their visions.
What they do not appear to have at the moment is trust and this appears to have been the case ever since their posting. Together both men were a great team as far as creating a billion dollar franchise is concerned. However, that was back when they trusted each other. I think this story is a perfect example of why trustworthiness is not overrated. Quite possibly if there had still been trust between these two former team members than they may not have made the two mistakes of posting online to the entire world while they were also momentarily upset with each other. The article implies that their original distrust stemmed over money – approximately several million dollars, which essentially escalated into where they are now – on the verge of ending the entire project. If the project does end for them it will result in a potential combined loss of over a billion of dollars to the organizations involved. So again from this extreme example (even though it may not be a traditional business example as far as board room executive trust is concerned) I believe that trust is definitely not overrated and when trust between organizational leaders is abused or broken, or temporarily discarded in moments of anger it has the potential to escalate into situations that can both directly and indirectly create problems for an organization at a variety of levels.
References:
Class slides from 10/08/07 and class discussion from 10/10/07
Svetkey, Benjamin. (2007, October 12). Can there be peace in Middle-Earth? Entertainment Weekly, #958, 28-36.
Thrill of Defeat - Fast Company - Shan Zhao
Pfizer Inc., the world’s largest research-based pharmaceutical company, is the world's biggest spender on research. According to European Commission, Pfizer spent 5.8 billion Euros ($8.18 billion) on research last year (White, 2007). The company has to deal with huge R&D spending with only 4%-8% survival rates, and sometimes a frustrating workforce. The article: Thrill of Defeat, talks about the how the R&D management team at Pfizer Inc, motivates its employees and balances between business and science by fostering a positive and encouraging culture in the often frustrating area.
Have you thought about why “research” is called “re—search”? My advisor asked the question when I was frustrated at second failure of a three – month experiment. I was suddenly hit by the whole meaning of the word of “re-search.” Repeatedly searching is the nature of scientist jobs. Each failure moves the researcher closer to the truth. However, the purpose of business differs far from that of science. The major purpose of a typical business is to deliver products and generate profits. They require quick breaking-through, which is often out of the hands of scientists. In this situation, the role of management is more about facilitating and supporting, instead of controlling and monitoring. The management team at Pfizer, represented by senior vice president Nancy Hutson, chose to “follow the science”. Acknowledging the nature of scientific discoveries, the management team sets expectation low: “…. develop a product that ultimately makes to the market”, is “beyond success. That’s supersuccess.” The bar may seem too low for many other types of business. However, if the managers fail to recognize the nature of science and push aggressively, morale and productivity will be damaged.
Although scientists are able to endure the “no result” as part of the job, it’s not hard to imagine how disappointed the researchers would be when years of works are in vain - only a small portion of researches can eventually hit the market. So how to manage the frustration and motivates people to move forward? The management team at Pfizer creates an encouraging working environment to fight the unbelievable odds. The assumption is that the employees are self-motivated. They come to work because they’re passionate about it. Like one of the experts at Pfizer said, a scientist “may never produce a marketable product, but the scientific insights gained in the holy space are enough”. But still, the reality is that a lot of researchers may not have a chance for the big market release. To fill the gap, the company recognizes small victories, such as publishing a paper. The news will be spread throughout the company. By providing a supporting environment, the managers help researchers better reach their full potential and persist through setbacks and defeats.
So what organizations, particularly those who are going through changes, can learn from this article?
First, set reasonable expectations for the change. Before the change begins, we set our expectations with the information we have. Some constraints are not obvious and may slip away from our attention, causing unrealistic expectations. These hidden things may fail the change down the road. We can’t predict future, but we can learn how people work now and design the change accordingly. The more details we understand, the more realistic and feasible the change plan would be. Imagine in Pfizer’s case, if top managers don’t understand a scientific breakthrough takes scientists years of work, what would they think about their employees? Would the management approach be the same?
Second, put people first when planning for change. The organizational goals are often different from individual needs, but the management needs to keep employee at first place when planning for change. An opposite example is the failed cost-cutting initiative at Microsoft. In an effort to cut internal cost, employees’ stock and vacation were cut; even the towels in the locker rooms were removed. Unexpected by the HR managers, the employees were angry and morale was hurt badly. The story tells us if employees are not being taken care of, the negative effects would bounce back and hurt the company.
Third, is a failed change initiative an absolute failure? Maybe not. Maybe there are positive aspects, such as small victories along the way. The failure may prepare organization for the next success. As leaders of change, we must see the positive side and be optimistic.
References
Aoife White. October 5th, 2007. EU: Pfizer Tops Global Research Spending. Associated Press. Accessed October, 10th, 2007. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iEn_99Gwzz21qPC4A5Q6PEflVbygD8S3369O0
Related Articles
Charles E. McCabe, edited and updated by Ryan P. Allis, Motivating and Retaining Employees, ZeroMillion.com. Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://www.zeromillion.com/business/employee-motivate.html
Laurent Leduc and Peter Jackson. 2002. A Paradox Illuminated. camagazine.com. Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://www.peace.ca/servantleadership1.htm
Myron Curry.2004. Effective Ways to Motivate Employees. Business Training Media.com Inc. Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://www.business-marketing.com/store/article-effectivemot.html
The Boston Consulting Group. 2006. Why Quality Programs Fail—and What to Do about It? Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://www.bcg.com/publications/files/Why_Quality_Programs_Fail_Dec2006.pdf
Pfizer, Wikipedia. Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer
Have you thought about why “research” is called “re—search”? My advisor asked the question when I was frustrated at second failure of a three – month experiment. I was suddenly hit by the whole meaning of the word of “re-search.” Repeatedly searching is the nature of scientist jobs. Each failure moves the researcher closer to the truth. However, the purpose of business differs far from that of science. The major purpose of a typical business is to deliver products and generate profits. They require quick breaking-through, which is often out of the hands of scientists. In this situation, the role of management is more about facilitating and supporting, instead of controlling and monitoring. The management team at Pfizer, represented by senior vice president Nancy Hutson, chose to “follow the science”. Acknowledging the nature of scientific discoveries, the management team sets expectation low: “…. develop a product that ultimately makes to the market”, is “beyond success. That’s supersuccess.” The bar may seem too low for many other types of business. However, if the managers fail to recognize the nature of science and push aggressively, morale and productivity will be damaged.
Although scientists are able to endure the “no result” as part of the job, it’s not hard to imagine how disappointed the researchers would be when years of works are in vain - only a small portion of researches can eventually hit the market. So how to manage the frustration and motivates people to move forward? The management team at Pfizer creates an encouraging working environment to fight the unbelievable odds. The assumption is that the employees are self-motivated. They come to work because they’re passionate about it. Like one of the experts at Pfizer said, a scientist “may never produce a marketable product, but the scientific insights gained in the holy space are enough”. But still, the reality is that a lot of researchers may not have a chance for the big market release. To fill the gap, the company recognizes small victories, such as publishing a paper. The news will be spread throughout the company. By providing a supporting environment, the managers help researchers better reach their full potential and persist through setbacks and defeats.
So what organizations, particularly those who are going through changes, can learn from this article?
First, set reasonable expectations for the change. Before the change begins, we set our expectations with the information we have. Some constraints are not obvious and may slip away from our attention, causing unrealistic expectations. These hidden things may fail the change down the road. We can’t predict future, but we can learn how people work now and design the change accordingly. The more details we understand, the more realistic and feasible the change plan would be. Imagine in Pfizer’s case, if top managers don’t understand a scientific breakthrough takes scientists years of work, what would they think about their employees? Would the management approach be the same?
Second, put people first when planning for change. The organizational goals are often different from individual needs, but the management needs to keep employee at first place when planning for change. An opposite example is the failed cost-cutting initiative at Microsoft. In an effort to cut internal cost, employees’ stock and vacation were cut; even the towels in the locker rooms were removed. Unexpected by the HR managers, the employees were angry and morale was hurt badly. The story tells us if employees are not being taken care of, the negative effects would bounce back and hurt the company.
Third, is a failed change initiative an absolute failure? Maybe not. Maybe there are positive aspects, such as small victories along the way. The failure may prepare organization for the next success. As leaders of change, we must see the positive side and be optimistic.
References
Aoife White. October 5th, 2007. EU: Pfizer Tops Global Research Spending. Associated Press. Accessed October, 10th, 2007. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iEn_99Gwzz21qPC4A5Q6PEflVbygD8S3369O0
Related Articles
Charles E. McCabe, edited and updated by Ryan P. Allis, Motivating and Retaining Employees, ZeroMillion.com. Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://www.zeromillion.com/business/employee-motivate.html
Laurent Leduc and Peter Jackson. 2002. A Paradox Illuminated. camagazine.com. Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://www.peace.ca/servantleadership1.htm
Myron Curry.2004. Effective Ways to Motivate Employees. Business Training Media.com Inc. Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://www.business-marketing.com/store/article-effectivemot.html
The Boston Consulting Group. 2006. Why Quality Programs Fail—and What to Do about It? Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://www.bcg.com/publications/files/Why_Quality_Programs_Fail_Dec2006.pdf
Pfizer, Wikipedia. Accessed October, 8th, 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer
Change or Die by Alan Deutschman - Fast Company - Kate Bogh
When Personal Healthcare Meets the Business World: Instigating change in the workplace by examining what works in the doctor’s office.
Article: Change or Die by Alan Deutschman
Encouraging people to change and actually watching people implement change are two very different things. The article, Change or Die by Alan Deutschman, discusses motivating factors in human change behaviors relating to how people change when it comes to life or death health issues to generating change in a business environment.
The dichotomies of human behavior change when it comes to personal health versus the workplace seem to be unrelated. However, the balance between the two, in this article, was well done and the connection is clear: if you cannot change a dying persons bad habits so they avoid death how can it be expected that the same tactics will work in the workplace?
In one of our previous class discussions, Annie mentioned that what would motivate her to change her behavior in terms of her health would be much more likely to succeed than would telling her to make a change at work. An individuals’ health should be given greater weight than work changes.
Actually, Deutschman found that the odds of people changing, when faced with imminent death due to heart disease, caused by lifestyle choices, are 9 to 1. Nine to one. This is dramatic. If severe heart disease, a serious personal health issue cannot motivate change, what can?
Familiar tactics do not work. Giving people facts and statistics is not enough. And fear, it has been found, is not a good motivator for change. In fact, often it makes the negative behaviors grow worse. “For a few weeks after a heart attack, patients were scared enough to do whatever their doctor said. But death was just too frightening to think about, so their denial would return, and they’d go back to their old ways.” [pg3]. Neither fear nor facts works. Deutschman suggests appealing to emotion, appropriate framing of change requests and radical change as opposed to small change.
Instigating Change
It turns out that appealing to emotions is a powerful factor in encouraging change. “Behavior change happens mostly by speaking to people’s feelings.” [pg2]. Appealing to emotion is a skill, one that is not generally taught in school or during work meetings. By appealing to emotions, Dr. Dean Ornish, the developer of a holistic program to change the behaviors of people with fatal heart diseases, succeeded with a 77% success rate of program participants. In fact, they even maintained their behavioral changes three years after the study completed. This is a significant improvement upon the 90% of people with heart disease that would not change their lifestyles to live.
There is also significant value of a charismatic leader, someone who can deliver a message and make a powerful emotional appeal. For large organizations, the CEO needs to be a good public speaker with organizational credibility.
Also, radical changes are often more successful than smaller changes. Dr. Ornish found that people stuck with drastic lifestyle changes that caused immediate results in health and wellness were best received and encouraged people to stick with changes. Organizations can find such results as well. In one study, by Bain & Co., a management consulting firm found that, when implementing “corporate transformations”, companies saw fast results. On average the 21 companies increased their stock prices by 250% a year.
Framing Issues and Requests for Change
Change requests should be framed such that they are positive, simple and have an emotional appeal. [pg4]. The brain works in concepts, fluid ideas that form how we think and form opinions. “The big challenge in trying to change how people think is that their minds rely on frames, not facts.” [pg 4]. Frames allow us to change our conceptions. Frames put a structure around facts that make them more digestible to the human brain. The point: frames are valuable, use them.
Keep Your Brain Flexible to Change!
The article finished off with how neuroscience has offered up a lot of new information on how people change their behaviors. The brain is actually quite flexible and does not loose ‘elasticity’ with time as was once thought.
Just as flutists have larger areas in their brain for fingers, tongue and lip coordination so do business people in their respective specializations. “A specialist is a hard thing to create, and is valuable for a corporation, obviously, but specialization also instills an inherent “rigidity.” The cumulative weight of experience makes it harder to change.” A good way to keep your brain flexible is to take up a new language or instrument or hobby that allows you keep your brain learning. Merzenich, a leading neuroscientist recommends organizations allow employees to move to a different department one day a week to experience work that challenges but keeps people rejuvenated.
Gints, during a class discussion, mentioned that Nordstrom had its management and administrative staff work in stores on a day where it would be especially busy and there were not enough employees to cover the load of work. This is the same idea. Bryce also suggested a similar idea during the same discussion that maybe executives should occasionally work across departments to stretch a bit and try something new. There are a lot of potential benefits to these ideas.
When our class discussed change management issues, I agreed that health care and health related issues are much more significant influence for change than work place transformations. I was looking forward to challenging the basis of the article but after a reread I totally agree with the basis. Identifying ways in which change is successful in both environments gives us a greater understanding of what works and what does not work.
Suggested Resources:
1) Bayer, Ellen. “The Unspoken Taboos of Leadership: Exploring Charisma”. Newsletter: Inspiring Leaders: inspiring Excellence. July ’07 Volume 1, Number 5. URL: http://www.framingchange.com/jul07.pdf
-Discusses the importance of charismatic leadership.
2) Benjamin, Robert D. “Framing Issues”. Mediation and Conflict Management Services. URL: http://rbenjamin.com/5-2%20Framing%20Issues.pdf
-Specialist in mediation and conflict resolution, Benjamin discusses the impact frames and the soft skills necessary to deal with issues surrounding the upcoming change.
3) Booz Allen Hamilton Publications. “An Overall Approach to Change Management”. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. 2004. URL: http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/139773.pdf 8 pgs.
-A very good basic article on change management worthy of a read. Discusses how to appeal to emotion, choose team and create urgency.
4) Heath, Robert L.“Issues Management: Its past, present and future”. Wiley InterScience. July 31, 2002. URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/cgi-bin/fulltext/112636965/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Note: To view, log into the UW library system first at lib.washington.edu then access the article.
-discusses leadership and framing
5) Vucurovic, Suzanne. “Using communication to ensure user buy in”. EI Magazine; 14 Nov 2005, Vol. 2 Issue 5. URL: http://www.eimagazine.com/xq/asp/sid.0/articleid.F337798F-BBB4-4C77-8564-0E6ACB6A81E6/qx/display.htm
-Specifically check out the sections titled ‘Gaining buy-in through communication’ and ‘Lessons learned over the past ten years’.
Article: Change or Die by Alan Deutschman
Encouraging people to change and actually watching people implement change are two very different things. The article, Change or Die by Alan Deutschman, discusses motivating factors in human change behaviors relating to how people change when it comes to life or death health issues to generating change in a business environment.
The dichotomies of human behavior change when it comes to personal health versus the workplace seem to be unrelated. However, the balance between the two, in this article, was well done and the connection is clear: if you cannot change a dying persons bad habits so they avoid death how can it be expected that the same tactics will work in the workplace?
In one of our previous class discussions, Annie mentioned that what would motivate her to change her behavior in terms of her health would be much more likely to succeed than would telling her to make a change at work. An individuals’ health should be given greater weight than work changes.
Actually, Deutschman found that the odds of people changing, when faced with imminent death due to heart disease, caused by lifestyle choices, are 9 to 1. Nine to one. This is dramatic. If severe heart disease, a serious personal health issue cannot motivate change, what can?
Familiar tactics do not work. Giving people facts and statistics is not enough. And fear, it has been found, is not a good motivator for change. In fact, often it makes the negative behaviors grow worse. “For a few weeks after a heart attack, patients were scared enough to do whatever their doctor said. But death was just too frightening to think about, so their denial would return, and they’d go back to their old ways.” [pg3]. Neither fear nor facts works. Deutschman suggests appealing to emotion, appropriate framing of change requests and radical change as opposed to small change.
Instigating Change
It turns out that appealing to emotions is a powerful factor in encouraging change. “Behavior change happens mostly by speaking to people’s feelings.” [pg2]. Appealing to emotion is a skill, one that is not generally taught in school or during work meetings. By appealing to emotions, Dr. Dean Ornish, the developer of a holistic program to change the behaviors of people with fatal heart diseases, succeeded with a 77% success rate of program participants. In fact, they even maintained their behavioral changes three years after the study completed. This is a significant improvement upon the 90% of people with heart disease that would not change their lifestyles to live.
There is also significant value of a charismatic leader, someone who can deliver a message and make a powerful emotional appeal. For large organizations, the CEO needs to be a good public speaker with organizational credibility.
Also, radical changes are often more successful than smaller changes. Dr. Ornish found that people stuck with drastic lifestyle changes that caused immediate results in health and wellness were best received and encouraged people to stick with changes. Organizations can find such results as well. In one study, by Bain & Co., a management consulting firm found that, when implementing “corporate transformations”, companies saw fast results. On average the 21 companies increased their stock prices by 250% a year.
Framing Issues and Requests for Change
Change requests should be framed such that they are positive, simple and have an emotional appeal. [pg4]. The brain works in concepts, fluid ideas that form how we think and form opinions. “The big challenge in trying to change how people think is that their minds rely on frames, not facts.” [pg 4]. Frames allow us to change our conceptions. Frames put a structure around facts that make them more digestible to the human brain. The point: frames are valuable, use them.
Keep Your Brain Flexible to Change!
The article finished off with how neuroscience has offered up a lot of new information on how people change their behaviors. The brain is actually quite flexible and does not loose ‘elasticity’ with time as was once thought.
Just as flutists have larger areas in their brain for fingers, tongue and lip coordination so do business people in their respective specializations. “A specialist is a hard thing to create, and is valuable for a corporation, obviously, but specialization also instills an inherent “rigidity.” The cumulative weight of experience makes it harder to change.” A good way to keep your brain flexible is to take up a new language or instrument or hobby that allows you keep your brain learning. Merzenich, a leading neuroscientist recommends organizations allow employees to move to a different department one day a week to experience work that challenges but keeps people rejuvenated.
Gints, during a class discussion, mentioned that Nordstrom had its management and administrative staff work in stores on a day where it would be especially busy and there were not enough employees to cover the load of work. This is the same idea. Bryce also suggested a similar idea during the same discussion that maybe executives should occasionally work across departments to stretch a bit and try something new. There are a lot of potential benefits to these ideas.
When our class discussed change management issues, I agreed that health care and health related issues are much more significant influence for change than work place transformations. I was looking forward to challenging the basis of the article but after a reread I totally agree with the basis. Identifying ways in which change is successful in both environments gives us a greater understanding of what works and what does not work.
Suggested Resources:
1) Bayer, Ellen. “The Unspoken Taboos of Leadership: Exploring Charisma”. Newsletter: Inspiring Leaders: inspiring Excellence. July ’07 Volume 1, Number 5. URL: http://www.framingchange.com/jul07.pdf
-Discusses the importance of charismatic leadership.
2) Benjamin, Robert D. “Framing Issues”. Mediation and Conflict Management Services. URL: http://rbenjamin.com/5-2%20Framing%20Issues.pdf
-Specialist in mediation and conflict resolution, Benjamin discusses the impact frames and the soft skills necessary to deal with issues surrounding the upcoming change.
3) Booz Allen Hamilton Publications. “An Overall Approach to Change Management”. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. 2004. URL: http://www.boozallen.com/media/file/139773.pdf 8 pgs.
-A very good basic article on change management worthy of a read. Discusses how to appeal to emotion, choose team and create urgency.
4) Heath, Robert L.“Issues Management: Its past, present and future”. Wiley InterScience. July 31, 2002. URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/cgi-bin/fulltext/112636965/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Note: To view, log into the UW library system first at lib.washington.edu then access the article.
-discusses leadership and framing
5) Vucurovic, Suzanne. “Using communication to ensure user buy in”. EI Magazine; 14 Nov 2005, Vol. 2 Issue 5. URL: http://www.eimagazine.com/xq/asp/sid.0/articleid.F337798F-BBB4-4C77-8564-0E6ACB6A81E6/qx/display.htm
-Specifically check out the sections titled ‘Gaining buy-in through communication’ and ‘Lessons learned over the past ten years’.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Fred Bigjim - Reflection
Today as I was watching NBC nightly news there was a very interesting story that relates to change management. This particular expose’ concerns foreign organizations buying out American companies here in America. http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=371cfeca-89d3-42b0-a7e3-066a78159b10
The Heart of Change book stresses the fact that change may happen fast and that organizations must stay in tune with the current state of affairs of business. The book does address the complexity of change concerning mergers or business acquisitions in some of the case studies; however these case studies seem to be limited to one organization of the same culture buying out another within its culture. For example one American company acquiring another American company or just as general, the concept of reducing costs by outsourcing to foreign firms is also discussed.
What has not been discussed in class or in the book is the new business climate of foreign firms buying out American firms and the potential for that to create a new form of complexity beyond just the underlying concepts explored in the book. For the Heart of Change book it could be an example of the time which it was published. In 2002 when the book was published there was not much news of foreign firms buying out American firms. Therefore why included case studies concerning the matter. In fact I would guess at the time of publication it was still considered an anomaly and that the norm was American firms partnering up with foreign firms in other countries.
What I found most interesting about the short expose’ is how quickly things have changed just since 2002. Now according to the story one in every four corporate buy outs in America is from a foreign firm buying out an American firm and how just last year approximately 800 American firms were sold to foreign investors and how the decline of the American dollar has helped to create this sort of climate here in America. Two of the stories I used for my news article examples had foreign firms buying out American firms this summer. I wrote about how Acer from Taiwan took advantage of Gateway’s financial problems and bought out Gateway and how Rupert Murdoch is currently in the process of buying out the Dow Jones Corporation.
When I decided on those articles it was because I thought it would be interesting from a change management perspective as far as one company acquiring the resources of another and how the two companies will approach the challenge of merging.
After viewing the news expose’, I am now more interested in how one firm with a traditional American approach to operating will react and change when acquired by a firm from a completely different culture.
The news story interviews a few people from the mid west and these people do express concern. How would the Heart of Change book address the “eight steps for successful large-scale change” under these new circumstances?
I believe that at least the first three steps would have to be re-thought in order to successfully accommodate how American workers will and or are adapting to being bought out by foreign firms from all around the world with possible very different cultural approaches to how business is conducted within large scale organizations. Instead of step one being increasing the urgency - I would guess it may in fact almost be opposite.
If an Arab firm buys an American plastic plant from GE as in the story I doubt that the management would want to create a sense of fear amongst departments. After all it is a business venture and for it to be worth the risk it would make sense to want to keep the valuable resources that made the acquisition attractive in the first place. Therefore, this would create a change atmosphere of wanting to reinforce people that for the time being operations will continue as normal and that there are not any urgent or radical changes in the works. This approach I believe would help to prevent or limit any organization wide fear and would help to lower the risk of losing valuable workers, clients, contractors, or even customers during the ownership transition stages.
I believe that one way to help keep fear to a minimum, in such examples as shown in the story, would be to make use of guiding teams communication routes to the workers. Only these management teams may want to emphasize that there is nothing to fear because as discussed in class these people are known to the workers so possibly the message coming from them would have more credibility to the workers as opposed to the message coming from a new foreign CEO. So instead of being a team to guide or drive a new vision of change during a possibly tense change period they would instead be utilized to help maintain organization productivity while at the same time instilling faith in the workers that the new outside owners are not intent on making drastic changes that will directly affect them on a personal level. An example of this appears in the story when a high level manager is being interviewed in Boston and presenting the new foreign owners as a welcoming and supportive addition to their day to day laboratory operations. He reinforces the idea that things continue locally as normal for everyone and that the change is more in name as opposed to how management operates the organization.
Even though the obvious change is one of going global; I am not sure that foreign firms use that as a vision during these types of organization change periods. Sure it is understood by the people in the firm that are being bought out that they are part of a global market, but at the same time I would guess that the leaders in the foreign firms would want the Americans to at least within the company rhetoric to think that they were still more of an American firm as opposed to being for example the American branch of a global Asian corporation.
Step four; communicate for buy-in, I believe takes on a slightly different meaning in such situations. The principal remains the same as far as convincing people that the change will be successful, but I believe it becomes more personal to the individuals involved when that change is one of foreign ownership and for that reason I think how buy in is communicated in these situations may need to be well thought out and delicate. Especially for Americans that are a part of certain industries that have traditionally viewed foreign competition as the enemy.
Also, the more extreme the cultural difference between the new owners and Americans would make for a more challenging buy-in campaign. An example of this is was when the Dubai firm attempted to buy American ports last year and the negative public reaction which resulted from it. Many ports are owned by foreign organizations. However, I believe cultural perceptions still play a role because there was not any national news protest when American ports were bought by firms from more western countries such as Spain.
I do feel that once the fear is calmed that step five of empowering action also takes on a different meaning in such situations. As opposed to just attempting to encourage people to act towards a change management vision, you are asking people to act on a new foreign ownership vision. I believe that this step is more essential in such situations because if not approached properly it could have even more unforeseen negative results than discussed in the book. My reason for stating so is because although American firms being bought out by foreign firms is not new, what is new is the increased rate for which it is currently occurring. The more it continues the more chance for mistakes. The more that happens the more likely people will begin to fear the idea of new foreign owners and that will only make the previous steps that much for difficult to accomplish because again I believe that it is the organization wide calming of most types of fear that could be what is most important to the success of foreign firms buying outs of American firms, not the creation of fear.
The Heart of Change book stresses the fact that change may happen fast and that organizations must stay in tune with the current state of affairs of business. The book does address the complexity of change concerning mergers or business acquisitions in some of the case studies; however these case studies seem to be limited to one organization of the same culture buying out another within its culture. For example one American company acquiring another American company or just as general, the concept of reducing costs by outsourcing to foreign firms is also discussed.
What has not been discussed in class or in the book is the new business climate of foreign firms buying out American firms and the potential for that to create a new form of complexity beyond just the underlying concepts explored in the book. For the Heart of Change book it could be an example of the time which it was published. In 2002 when the book was published there was not much news of foreign firms buying out American firms. Therefore why included case studies concerning the matter. In fact I would guess at the time of publication it was still considered an anomaly and that the norm was American firms partnering up with foreign firms in other countries.
What I found most interesting about the short expose’ is how quickly things have changed just since 2002. Now according to the story one in every four corporate buy outs in America is from a foreign firm buying out an American firm and how just last year approximately 800 American firms were sold to foreign investors and how the decline of the American dollar has helped to create this sort of climate here in America. Two of the stories I used for my news article examples had foreign firms buying out American firms this summer. I wrote about how Acer from Taiwan took advantage of Gateway’s financial problems and bought out Gateway and how Rupert Murdoch is currently in the process of buying out the Dow Jones Corporation.
When I decided on those articles it was because I thought it would be interesting from a change management perspective as far as one company acquiring the resources of another and how the two companies will approach the challenge of merging.
After viewing the news expose’, I am now more interested in how one firm with a traditional American approach to operating will react and change when acquired by a firm from a completely different culture.
The news story interviews a few people from the mid west and these people do express concern. How would the Heart of Change book address the “eight steps for successful large-scale change” under these new circumstances?
I believe that at least the first three steps would have to be re-thought in order to successfully accommodate how American workers will and or are adapting to being bought out by foreign firms from all around the world with possible very different cultural approaches to how business is conducted within large scale organizations. Instead of step one being increasing the urgency - I would guess it may in fact almost be opposite.
If an Arab firm buys an American plastic plant from GE as in the story I doubt that the management would want to create a sense of fear amongst departments. After all it is a business venture and for it to be worth the risk it would make sense to want to keep the valuable resources that made the acquisition attractive in the first place. Therefore, this would create a change atmosphere of wanting to reinforce people that for the time being operations will continue as normal and that there are not any urgent or radical changes in the works. This approach I believe would help to prevent or limit any organization wide fear and would help to lower the risk of losing valuable workers, clients, contractors, or even customers during the ownership transition stages.
I believe that one way to help keep fear to a minimum, in such examples as shown in the story, would be to make use of guiding teams communication routes to the workers. Only these management teams may want to emphasize that there is nothing to fear because as discussed in class these people are known to the workers so possibly the message coming from them would have more credibility to the workers as opposed to the message coming from a new foreign CEO. So instead of being a team to guide or drive a new vision of change during a possibly tense change period they would instead be utilized to help maintain organization productivity while at the same time instilling faith in the workers that the new outside owners are not intent on making drastic changes that will directly affect them on a personal level. An example of this appears in the story when a high level manager is being interviewed in Boston and presenting the new foreign owners as a welcoming and supportive addition to their day to day laboratory operations. He reinforces the idea that things continue locally as normal for everyone and that the change is more in name as opposed to how management operates the organization.
Even though the obvious change is one of going global; I am not sure that foreign firms use that as a vision during these types of organization change periods. Sure it is understood by the people in the firm that are being bought out that they are part of a global market, but at the same time I would guess that the leaders in the foreign firms would want the Americans to at least within the company rhetoric to think that they were still more of an American firm as opposed to being for example the American branch of a global Asian corporation.
Step four; communicate for buy-in, I believe takes on a slightly different meaning in such situations. The principal remains the same as far as convincing people that the change will be successful, but I believe it becomes more personal to the individuals involved when that change is one of foreign ownership and for that reason I think how buy in is communicated in these situations may need to be well thought out and delicate. Especially for Americans that are a part of certain industries that have traditionally viewed foreign competition as the enemy.
Also, the more extreme the cultural difference between the new owners and Americans would make for a more challenging buy-in campaign. An example of this is was when the Dubai firm attempted to buy American ports last year and the negative public reaction which resulted from it. Many ports are owned by foreign organizations. However, I believe cultural perceptions still play a role because there was not any national news protest when American ports were bought by firms from more western countries such as Spain.
I do feel that once the fear is calmed that step five of empowering action also takes on a different meaning in such situations. As opposed to just attempting to encourage people to act towards a change management vision, you are asking people to act on a new foreign ownership vision. I believe that this step is more essential in such situations because if not approached properly it could have even more unforeseen negative results than discussed in the book. My reason for stating so is because although American firms being bought out by foreign firms is not new, what is new is the increased rate for which it is currently occurring. The more it continues the more chance for mistakes. The more that happens the more likely people will begin to fear the idea of new foreign owners and that will only make the previous steps that much for difficult to accomplish because again I believe that it is the organization wide calming of most types of fear that could be what is most important to the success of foreign firms buying outs of American firms, not the creation of fear.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Do You Have the Will to Lead? - Fast Company - John Tulinsky
Do You Have the Will to Lead? (LINK)
Article Summary
Do You Have the Will to Lead? is the transcript of an interview with Peter Koestenbaum. Koestenbaum was a philosophy professor at San Jose State University for 34 years and currently works as an author and consultant. He applies philosophical principles to business problems, with a particular emphasis on how to reconcile business needs with human values.
The interview begins with Koestenbaum’s observation that companies generally approach organizational change as a technical issue. In contrast, he argues that leaders who hope to achieve significant, lasting change must instead find answers to difficult questions about business life. In turn this requires deep self-knowledge. However, many factors in modern society push us in the opposite direction. We are pressured to continually meet higher standards in work, wealth and lifestyle, far beyond what is possible for most people. This leads to the “new-economy pathology,” defined as a paralyzing condition that is driven by this impossible set of demands. Koestenbaum is especially critical of the rock star treatment given to executives and to business in general by the media and popular culture.
This condition is exacerbated by the pornographic treatment of business in media and culture. The message is, You're living in the best country in the world at the best time in history; you have an amazing degree of freedom to do what you want, along with an unprecedented opportunity to build immense wealth and success -- and to do it more quickly than ever before. Of course, the average individual has as much of a chance of launching a skyrocketing IPO as he or she has of becoming a movie star.
What's even more disturbing is that the ascendancy of shareholder value as the dominant driving force in business has resulted in a terrible insensitivity to basic human values. That's the real "stuck point" for leaders: How do we cope with a brutal business reality and still preserve human values? How do we handle competition without becoming either the kind of fool who allows it to crush us or the kind of fool who forgets people? (LaBarre, 2000)
In response to these pressures Koestenbaum argues that effective leaders must abandon a Manichean perspective and embrace the contradictions and ambiguities that are an inherent part of life. Nearly every business decision involves a confrontation, for example individual versus team, different priorities, different values, or work versus family life to name just a few. Seldom, if ever, is there a single correct answer to these questions and the most important characteristic of a leader is the ability to successfully manage these polarities.
Managing polarity teaches us that there are no solutions -- there are only changes of attitude. When you grapple with polarities in your life, you lose your arrogant, self-indulgent illusions, and you realize that the joke is on you. To get that message makes you a more credible human being -- instantly. (LaBarre, 2000)
Expanding on this point, Koestenbaum explains that leadership requires operating in four dimensions: vision, reality, ethics and courage. Most people focus on one or two; however the best leaders are able to reconcile the contradictory demands of all four modes of thinking. He next explains his view of courage, which he feels is the central characteristic of a leader. In this context courage means to face the true meaning of free will; we are free to define ourselves every second. Of course accepting this also means the complete acceptance of responsibility for our situation. Overcoming the anxiety associated with this is the key to fulfilling our potential.
Some people are more talented than others. Some are more educationally privileged than others. But we all have the capacity to be great. Greatness comes with recognizing that your potential is limited only by how you choose, how you use your freedom, how resolute you are, how persistent you are -- in short, by your attitude. And we are all free to choose our attitude. (LaBarre, 2000)
Discussion
I found this article to be interesting on several levels. I strongly agree with Koestenbaum that turning business people into celebrities and focusing on stock price as a measure of a company’s success has led to a dysfunctional and ultimately unsustainable model. For example, in the pharmaceutical industry it has been established that extensive mergers have led to a negative economy of scale, with the majority of innovative new products now being discovered by small, entrepreneurial companies (Cooke, 2003). And yet, the mergers continue to happen. I believe that the focus on short-term stock price appreciation is especially damaging to companies that are based on research and innovation, the domain in which I intend to pursue a career.
However, the point of the article is not to discuss prevailing business models but rather to address how an effective leader responds to these pressures and maintains a delicate balance between many conflicting demands. On the surface much of this appears to be a truism; basically, follow the golden rule. It has been argued that this is true about leadership studies in general; they generally find that “good” leaders have certain skills when interacting with people (Kelly, White, Martin and Rouncefield; 2006). However, I believe that Koestenbaum addresses a deeper issue. I am personally uncomfortable with the notion of a heroic, charismatic leader, whether in the world of business or politics. The Enron and World Com debacles are just two examples of the dubious wisdom of placing too much power in the hands of individuals. Academic studies suggest that discomfort with the model of a charismatic leader is a general trend (Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J.; 2005). In a 360-degree study of 3,500 managers and executives in health care and government Metcalfe and Metcalfe established that characteristics such as transparency, accessibility, loyalty, and partnership with employees were generally more valuable leadership traits than decisiveness, ability to inspire others, ability to solve complex problems and ability to focus team effort; attributes that are traditionally associated with strong leaders. These findings make a seamless fit with Koestenbaum’s leadership model;
So how do you motivate people? Not with techniques, but by risking yourself with a personal, lifelong commitment to greatness -- by demonstrating courage. You don't teach it so much as challenge it into existence. You cannot choose for others. All you can do is inform them that you cannot choose for them. In most cases, that in itself will be a strong motivator for the people whom you want to cultivate. The leader's role is less to heal or to help than to enlarge the capacity for responsible freedom (LaBarre, 2000).
The final point of the article is Koestenbaum’s assertion that we have absolute free will and thus ultimately have complete responsibility for our state. While I agree in principle I believe that external circumstances and random chance play a much bigger role in our lives and careers than Koestenbaum admits. As mentioned above, society and the media treat successful investors, executives, etc as celebrities. By looking at only one side of the bell curve we ignore the fact that that there are many unsuccessful investors and managers who are as intelligent and qualified as the successes. They made choices that at the time were rational and defensible but that future circumstances showed to be incorrect. Basically, we shouldn’t give ourselves too much credit for being a genius (Taleb, 2004). I also believe that Koestenbaum inappropriately minimizes the importance of internal and external politics and other constraints (Stewart, 2006).
The continuous stream of buzz words, techniques and new paradigms is a characteristic of the change management literature that makes me cynical about the discipline. While some of these may provide useful models they are not one-size-fits-all solutions. Ultimately an effective leader must be able to adapt to unique situations. This is why clear, unbiased thinking and strong values are keys to leadership (LaBarre, 2000; Stewart, 2006).
References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B.; Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2005). Leadership: Time for a New Direction? Leadership, 1(1), 51-71.
Cooke, P. (2003). Biotechnology clusters, "Big Pharma" and the Knowledge-Driven Economy. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(1-2), 65-80.
Kelly, S.; Iszatt-White, M.; Martin, D.; Rouncefield, M. (2006). Leadership Refrains: Patterns of Leadership. Leadership, 2(2), 181-201.
LaBarre, P. (2000, February). Do You Have the Will to Lead? Fast Company, 32, 222. Retrieved October 08, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/32/koestenbaum.html
Stewart, M. (2006, June). The Management Myth. The Atlantic, 80-87.
Taleb, N.N. (2004). Randomness and Our Brain: We Are Probability Blind. In Fooled by Randomness; The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets (pp 168-200). New York: TEXERE.
Article Summary
Do You Have the Will to Lead? is the transcript of an interview with Peter Koestenbaum. Koestenbaum was a philosophy professor at San Jose State University for 34 years and currently works as an author and consultant. He applies philosophical principles to business problems, with a particular emphasis on how to reconcile business needs with human values.
The interview begins with Koestenbaum’s observation that companies generally approach organizational change as a technical issue. In contrast, he argues that leaders who hope to achieve significant, lasting change must instead find answers to difficult questions about business life. In turn this requires deep self-knowledge. However, many factors in modern society push us in the opposite direction. We are pressured to continually meet higher standards in work, wealth and lifestyle, far beyond what is possible for most people. This leads to the “new-economy pathology,” defined as a paralyzing condition that is driven by this impossible set of demands. Koestenbaum is especially critical of the rock star treatment given to executives and to business in general by the media and popular culture.
This condition is exacerbated by the pornographic treatment of business in media and culture. The message is, You're living in the best country in the world at the best time in history; you have an amazing degree of freedom to do what you want, along with an unprecedented opportunity to build immense wealth and success -- and to do it more quickly than ever before. Of course, the average individual has as much of a chance of launching a skyrocketing IPO as he or she has of becoming a movie star.
What's even more disturbing is that the ascendancy of shareholder value as the dominant driving force in business has resulted in a terrible insensitivity to basic human values. That's the real "stuck point" for leaders: How do we cope with a brutal business reality and still preserve human values? How do we handle competition without becoming either the kind of fool who allows it to crush us or the kind of fool who forgets people? (LaBarre, 2000)
In response to these pressures Koestenbaum argues that effective leaders must abandon a Manichean perspective and embrace the contradictions and ambiguities that are an inherent part of life. Nearly every business decision involves a confrontation, for example individual versus team, different priorities, different values, or work versus family life to name just a few. Seldom, if ever, is there a single correct answer to these questions and the most important characteristic of a leader is the ability to successfully manage these polarities.
Managing polarity teaches us that there are no solutions -- there are only changes of attitude. When you grapple with polarities in your life, you lose your arrogant, self-indulgent illusions, and you realize that the joke is on you. To get that message makes you a more credible human being -- instantly. (LaBarre, 2000)
Expanding on this point, Koestenbaum explains that leadership requires operating in four dimensions: vision, reality, ethics and courage. Most people focus on one or two; however the best leaders are able to reconcile the contradictory demands of all four modes of thinking. He next explains his view of courage, which he feels is the central characteristic of a leader. In this context courage means to face the true meaning of free will; we are free to define ourselves every second. Of course accepting this also means the complete acceptance of responsibility for our situation. Overcoming the anxiety associated with this is the key to fulfilling our potential.
Some people are more talented than others. Some are more educationally privileged than others. But we all have the capacity to be great. Greatness comes with recognizing that your potential is limited only by how you choose, how you use your freedom, how resolute you are, how persistent you are -- in short, by your attitude. And we are all free to choose our attitude. (LaBarre, 2000)
Discussion
I found this article to be interesting on several levels. I strongly agree with Koestenbaum that turning business people into celebrities and focusing on stock price as a measure of a company’s success has led to a dysfunctional and ultimately unsustainable model. For example, in the pharmaceutical industry it has been established that extensive mergers have led to a negative economy of scale, with the majority of innovative new products now being discovered by small, entrepreneurial companies (Cooke, 2003). And yet, the mergers continue to happen. I believe that the focus on short-term stock price appreciation is especially damaging to companies that are based on research and innovation, the domain in which I intend to pursue a career.
However, the point of the article is not to discuss prevailing business models but rather to address how an effective leader responds to these pressures and maintains a delicate balance between many conflicting demands. On the surface much of this appears to be a truism; basically, follow the golden rule. It has been argued that this is true about leadership studies in general; they generally find that “good” leaders have certain skills when interacting with people (Kelly, White, Martin and Rouncefield; 2006). However, I believe that Koestenbaum addresses a deeper issue. I am personally uncomfortable with the notion of a heroic, charismatic leader, whether in the world of business or politics. The Enron and World Com debacles are just two examples of the dubious wisdom of placing too much power in the hands of individuals. Academic studies suggest that discomfort with the model of a charismatic leader is a general trend (Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J.; 2005). In a 360-degree study of 3,500 managers and executives in health care and government Metcalfe and Metcalfe established that characteristics such as transparency, accessibility, loyalty, and partnership with employees were generally more valuable leadership traits than decisiveness, ability to inspire others, ability to solve complex problems and ability to focus team effort; attributes that are traditionally associated with strong leaders. These findings make a seamless fit with Koestenbaum’s leadership model;
So how do you motivate people? Not with techniques, but by risking yourself with a personal, lifelong commitment to greatness -- by demonstrating courage. You don't teach it so much as challenge it into existence. You cannot choose for others. All you can do is inform them that you cannot choose for them. In most cases, that in itself will be a strong motivator for the people whom you want to cultivate. The leader's role is less to heal or to help than to enlarge the capacity for responsible freedom (LaBarre, 2000).
The final point of the article is Koestenbaum’s assertion that we have absolute free will and thus ultimately have complete responsibility for our state. While I agree in principle I believe that external circumstances and random chance play a much bigger role in our lives and careers than Koestenbaum admits. As mentioned above, society and the media treat successful investors, executives, etc as celebrities. By looking at only one side of the bell curve we ignore the fact that that there are many unsuccessful investors and managers who are as intelligent and qualified as the successes. They made choices that at the time were rational and defensible but that future circumstances showed to be incorrect. Basically, we shouldn’t give ourselves too much credit for being a genius (Taleb, 2004). I also believe that Koestenbaum inappropriately minimizes the importance of internal and external politics and other constraints (Stewart, 2006).
The continuous stream of buzz words, techniques and new paradigms is a characteristic of the change management literature that makes me cynical about the discipline. While some of these may provide useful models they are not one-size-fits-all solutions. Ultimately an effective leader must be able to adapt to unique situations. This is why clear, unbiased thinking and strong values are keys to leadership (LaBarre, 2000; Stewart, 2006).
References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B.; Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2005). Leadership: Time for a New Direction? Leadership, 1(1), 51-71.
Cooke, P. (2003). Biotechnology clusters, "Big Pharma" and the Knowledge-Driven Economy. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(1-2), 65-80.
Kelly, S.; Iszatt-White, M.; Martin, D.; Rouncefield, M. (2006). Leadership Refrains: Patterns of Leadership. Leadership, 2(2), 181-201.
LaBarre, P. (2000, February). Do You Have the Will to Lead? Fast Company, 32, 222. Retrieved October 08, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/32/koestenbaum.html
Stewart, M. (2006, June). The Management Myth. The Atlantic, 80-87.
Taleb, N.N. (2004). Randomness and Our Brain: We Are Probability Blind. In Fooled by Randomness; The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets (pp 168-200). New York: TEXERE.
And Now the Hard Part - Fast Company - Rachel Elkington
The Fast Company article “And Now the Hard Part” described the growing company JetBlue and the personality of JetBlue CEO David Neelman. At the time the article was written, JetBlue had been a successful small company, and had just undertaken an initiative grow quickly.
The author of the Fast Company article - Chuck Salter - traveled with Neelman on several JetBlue flights and interviewed him about the company and his philosophy of management. In his article, Salter made a prediction that, although growth might be difficult for JetBlue (thus the title “And Now the Hard Part”) it would be possible, and JetBlue would become a major contender in domestic United States airlines. Salter based his conclusion on several factors: JetBlue’s IT infrastructure was – in Salter’s estimation – good, and ready to handle much more input than it currently received. Also, the culture of JetBlue was friendly, proactive, and provided great service to customers. The greatest challenge, Salter observed, was the scale-ability of this culture. His question: as a company grows larger, can it hold onto this small town friendliness? Most definitively, Salter argued that Neelman was the company’s greatest asset, and that if he could be ‘scaled,’ JetBlue would successfully grow.
Since May 2004 was a few years ago, Salter’s conclusions were easy to test by looking into the progress JetBlue made in the marketplace since then. Progress is the wrong word to describe what happened to JetBlue – the words ‘terrible fate’ are more apt. A Newsweek article on the 5th of March 2007 put it best
In its brief but glorious life, JetBlue Airways has become a business-school case study. Business junkies everywhere have praised the customer service, new planes and clever marketing that turned JetBlue from a concept into the nation's eighth biggest airline in only eight years. But now that JetBlue has bungled its way into a Valentine's Day customer massacre and become the butt of late-night comics' jokes… [1]
The customer massacre to which the article refers was the pivotal point in JetBlue’s growth initiative. On Febuary 14th 2007 an ice-storm hit New York’s JFK airport, which is the JetBlue hub. Operations at the airline did not handle the weather problem effectively, and thousands of their passengers were stranded at the airport – some for days. Also, 2,500 pieces of luggage were misplaced. This problem made national headlines and alienated most of JetBlue customer base.
Not only did the Valentine’s Day meltdown throw into serious question JetBlue’s ability to grow, it dealt a blow to the confidence the organization had in it’s charismatic leader, David Neelman. “New York-based discounter JetBlue on Thursday replaced founder David Neeleman as its chief executive, part of a broader effort by the airline to improve operations after its Valentine's Day meltdown.”[2] Neelman, the golden child of JetBlue was given a noconfidence vote after the operational meltdown. This definitively answered the question: Can Neelan be scaled?
JetBlue has made moves since the change in leadership to overcome the operational catastrophe it encountered. It contacted customers affected by the meltdown to ask how it could win their trust back. JetBlue also gave out about $14 million in vouchers to affected customers. The jury is still out on whether JetBlue can recover, but my prediction is no. I think they are too over-extended and no longer have the goodwill of their customer base.
Reading this article, and the articles that described the outcome of JetBlue’s business taught me several things about change management. First, and foremost, growth is a dangerous thing. It is not the inherent good that many assume it to be, it is a calculated risk. Second, this story highlights that the personality of an entrepreneur may not be well suited to handling the day to day operations of a large company. Neelman was great at helping JetBlue start out, but when it came to tightening operations in advance of any major problems, he failed completely. The story also tells a cautionary tale about putting ‘nice to haves’ (JetBlue’s extra perks and cool image) above basic business considerations and concrete details. Visioning can only get you so far, all the details have to be in place. That lesson should serve me well as I think about someday starting my own business.
Reading about JetBlue made me ponder the following – I would be interested in hearing my class mates’ thoughts on these.
The author of the Fast Company article - Chuck Salter - traveled with Neelman on several JetBlue flights and interviewed him about the company and his philosophy of management. In his article, Salter made a prediction that, although growth might be difficult for JetBlue (thus the title “And Now the Hard Part”) it would be possible, and JetBlue would become a major contender in domestic United States airlines. Salter based his conclusion on several factors: JetBlue’s IT infrastructure was – in Salter’s estimation – good, and ready to handle much more input than it currently received. Also, the culture of JetBlue was friendly, proactive, and provided great service to customers. The greatest challenge, Salter observed, was the scale-ability of this culture. His question: as a company grows larger, can it hold onto this small town friendliness? Most definitively, Salter argued that Neelman was the company’s greatest asset, and that if he could be ‘scaled,’ JetBlue would successfully grow.
Since May 2004 was a few years ago, Salter’s conclusions were easy to test by looking into the progress JetBlue made in the marketplace since then. Progress is the wrong word to describe what happened to JetBlue – the words ‘terrible fate’ are more apt. A Newsweek article on the 5th of March 2007 put it best
In its brief but glorious life, JetBlue Airways has become a business-school case study. Business junkies everywhere have praised the customer service, new planes and clever marketing that turned JetBlue from a concept into the nation's eighth biggest airline in only eight years. But now that JetBlue has bungled its way into a Valentine's Day customer massacre and become the butt of late-night comics' jokes… [1]
The customer massacre to which the article refers was the pivotal point in JetBlue’s growth initiative. On Febuary 14th 2007 an ice-storm hit New York’s JFK airport, which is the JetBlue hub. Operations at the airline did not handle the weather problem effectively, and thousands of their passengers were stranded at the airport – some for days. Also, 2,500 pieces of luggage were misplaced. This problem made national headlines and alienated most of JetBlue customer base.
Not only did the Valentine’s Day meltdown throw into serious question JetBlue’s ability to grow, it dealt a blow to the confidence the organization had in it’s charismatic leader, David Neelman. “New York-based discounter JetBlue on Thursday replaced founder David Neeleman as its chief executive, part of a broader effort by the airline to improve operations after its Valentine's Day meltdown.”[2] Neelman, the golden child of JetBlue was given a noconfidence vote after the operational meltdown. This definitively answered the question: Can Neelan be scaled?
JetBlue has made moves since the change in leadership to overcome the operational catastrophe it encountered. It contacted customers affected by the meltdown to ask how it could win their trust back. JetBlue also gave out about $14 million in vouchers to affected customers. The jury is still out on whether JetBlue can recover, but my prediction is no. I think they are too over-extended and no longer have the goodwill of their customer base.
Reading this article, and the articles that described the outcome of JetBlue’s business taught me several things about change management. First, and foremost, growth is a dangerous thing. It is not the inherent good that many assume it to be, it is a calculated risk. Second, this story highlights that the personality of an entrepreneur may not be well suited to handling the day to day operations of a large company. Neelman was great at helping JetBlue start out, but when it came to tightening operations in advance of any major problems, he failed completely. The story also tells a cautionary tale about putting ‘nice to haves’ (JetBlue’s extra perks and cool image) above basic business considerations and concrete details. Visioning can only get you so far, all the details have to be in place. That lesson should serve me well as I think about someday starting my own business.
Reading about JetBlue made me ponder the following – I would be interested in hearing my class mates’ thoughts on these.
- Are JetBlue’s problems this just a standard growth problem?
- Was this just a really unlikely and unfortunate circumstance?
- Is this something unique to the airline industry, that one mismanaged storm can jeopardize the future of the company, or are all types of industry this vulnerable?
- If you had been stuck in JFK for two days, would you give JetBlue another chance?
- Will replacing Neelman be enough?
Articles:
Newsweek, “Skies Were Cloudy Before Jet Blew It,” Allan Sloan with Temma Ehrenfeld, March 5th, 2007.
Aviation Daily, “JetBlue’s Newest Markets Yield Mixed Bag Of Results,”, Lori Ranson, July 27, 2007.
USA Today, “JetBlue bumps founder out of CEO role; COO Barger steps in as Neeleman remains on board as 'visionary,'” Barbara De Lollis, May 11, 2007.
Los Angeles Times, “JetBlue changes CEO, may move in new direction; Operating chief David Barger replaces David Neeleman and could be more open to a merger.” Peter Pae, May 11, 2007.
Newsday, “JetBlue taken for bumpy ride; Falling share prices, lagging earnings and more competition continue to buffet the Queens-based airline,” John Wilen, September 3, 2007.
Business Week, “JetBlue Customers Stand by their Carrier,” Staff, March 26, 2007.
[1] Newsweek, “Skies Were Cloudy Before Jet Blew It,” Allan Sloan with Temma Ehrenfeld, March 5th, 2007.
[2] USA Today, “JetBlue bumps founder out of CEO role; COO Barger steps in as Neeleman remains on board as 'visionary,'” Barbara De Lollis, May 11, 2007.
Book Review - Usha Jose
Paradigm Found: Leading and Managing for Positive Change. Anne Firth Murray.California,New World Library,2006. 236 pp. $14.95 (ISBN : 1577315332)
Book Review - Evan Luckey
Harvard Business Review on Culture and Change. Bill Munck. Lisa Laskow Lahe. Debra E. Meyerson. Donald Sull .Katherine M. Hudson. Paul F. Levy. Harvard Business School Press (May 7, 2002). 228pp. $14.00. (ISBN: 978-1578518364)
Book Review - David Gui
Change Management in a Week (In a Week). Authored by Mike Bourne, Pippa Bourne, Contributed by Chartered Management Institute Staff. Published by Hodder & Stoughton, 2003. 96pp. $9.99 (ISBN-10: 0340846100), (ISBN-13: 978-0340846100
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Reflection - Becca Allen
Trust and the Salesman
I found John’s success story of the St. Petersburg Times very interesting. For one thing, I’m a sucker for happy endings. The fact that one little newspaper can be so successful shows that there are large numbers of people who support the kind of honest, informed journalism that isn’t fed by the political agendas of advertisers and media moguls. While I’m happy to zone out on my celebrity updates from any source, I try to be more selective when it comes to issues that really impact the people I care about and the world I live in. At any rate, as I read John’s case, I was reminded of an excerpt from the book I’ve been reading for my book review. Specifically, the mention of cable television as a primary news source for Americans got me thinking about how the ability to initiate change in others can rely heavily on human emotions such as trust, loyalty, and goodwill.
According to Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, some people who act as effective change agents have a “salesman”-like quality to them, but not in the slimy, double-crossing kind of way. A great salesman has “the skills to persuade us when we are unconvinced of what we are hearing” and does so with great energy and affability (Gladwell, 2000, p.73). Furthermore, the ability to be persuasive covers a lot more than just words. Gladwell referred to an experiment conducted during the 1984 presidential election, between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale. A team of psychologists taped three anchors reporting the news: Peter Jennings at ABC, Tom Brokaw at NBC, and Dan Rather at CBS. After creating multiple segments of each anchor discussing the two presidential candidates and removing the sound, the clips were shown to study participants who were asked to rate the facial expressions of the anchors according to a scale, from “extremely negative” to “extremely positive.” Dan Rather’s face was rated as basically neutral while talking about both candidates, as was Tom Brokaw’s. Peter Jennings, however, rated dramatically higher on the “extremely positive” side while discussing Reagan over Mondale. The study concluded that Jennings “exhibited a ‘significant and noticeable bias in facial expression’” (Gladwell, 2000, p.75).
In the second part of the study, numerous calls were made all over the country to people who were considered regular viewers of the evening news. When asked which presidential candidate they voted for, those who watched Jennings on “ABC voted for Reagan in far greater numbers than those who watched CBS or NBC” (Gladwell, 2000, p.76). This is also in light of the fact that ABC was “shown to be the network most hostile to Reagan” throughout the presidential campaign (Gladwell, 2000, p. 76). The body language of one news anchor superseded all other messages, including the neutral, journalistic words from his mouth. The director of the study said:
…someone’s subtle signals in favor of one politician or another usually don’t matter at all. But in the particular, unguarded way that people watch the news, a little bias can suddenly go a long way…it’s much more subtle and for that reason much more insidious, and that much harder to insulate ourselves against. (Gladwell, 2000, p. 78)
My general understanding of the news is that it’s unbiased accounts of relevant current events; we take in the information, process it according to our personal lens, and then form our own judgments and opinions accordingly. This perspective automatically lends a certain amount of trust in any official organization that delivers the news. When humans are able to feel genuine trust, we put our guards down. This makes us susceptible to influence, but whether or not that’s a “good” or “bad” thing depends on the situation. It’s certainly disconcerting to see how easily we can be persuaded by signals and nuances that we don’t consciously notice. Most importantly, what implications do trust and the “salesman” have on managing organizational change?
Trust and Theory O
While researching examples of failures and successes, I came across an article that broke change management down into two categories: E and O. E strategies concern “change based on economic value” and O strategies are “change based on organizational capability” (Beer and Nohria, 2000, p. 134). A company implementing theory E usually uses “economic incentives, drastic layoffs, downsizing, and restructuring,” from the top down (Beer and Nohria, 2000, p. 134). In contrast, theory O involves the soft methods of developing “corporate culture and human capability through individual and organizational learning,” from the bottom up (Beer and Nohria, 2000, p. 134). Some companies use just one theory while others use a combination of both, and successes are found from doing either. However, the authors warn that due to the opposing nature of theories E and O, successful organizational change with sustained competitive advantage will only be achieved with specific application of the two strategies.
In order to implement theory E, leaders need to be ruthless in prioritizing shareholder value; employees that cannot meet goals or subscribe to the E philosophy are given few chances before they are let go. “CEOs who must make difficult E-style choices understandably distance themselves from their employees to ease their own pain and guilt” (Beer and Nohria, 2000, p. 137). On the other hand, to effectively transform culture with theory O, the ultimate focus is on open communication and teamwork. The cases used as O examples illustrated companies emerging from their change with matrix and decentralized structures. Sequencing the two strategies one after another can be problematic, whereas—the article concludes—a combination of both is the winning application. While the entire article was very informative, I found myself drawn to theory O. Maximizing profits with theory E is undoubtedly crucial, but it’s not a strategy I’ve often encountered in our readings up to this point. Its focus is on numbers; pretty straightforward. The change management we’re learning about is heavily people-centered; complex and difficult.
This is where the necessity of trust comes in. There was a question posed during the class lecture today about the importance of trust in working relationships. If a team can trust one another’s capabilities, they are more likely to let their guards down, which fosters creativity and strengthens interpersonal relationships. I am much more likely to give the salesman a chance to convince me of their cause if I trust the person first and foremost. I don’t need to trust you with my life; you’re a coworker, not a best friend. But I do need to know that you have our mutual best interests at heart for me to even consider change. If that initial bond has been forged, you may even be able to slip in a little bias, à la Peter Jennings, to really drive the point home and get me thinking differently.
Closing Questions
So…why is this class a part of our core curriculum? Is it because, as information managers, we will be tasked with gaining buy-in from our peers when it comes to justifying the implementation of new information systems? Or is it because change, just like information, is a pervasive and constant component of every organization? And, also like information, will learning how to effectively contain and manage change contribute to competitive advantage? Can change be seen as an asset? Can you maximize the value of change just like you can with other assets, such as human resources and finances?
References
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, 133-141.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point. New York: Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company.
Leading Change - Bryce A. Smart
One of the core truths of change is that it must be managed. Simply allowing hundreds of different employees, motivated by a sense of urgency (assuming we adhere to Kotter and Cohen’s 8-step model), to follow their own vectors of action would result in the entropic deterioration of the organization as a whole. Order and direction must exist for any change to produce a successful result.
How is this change supposed to be managed? According to Kotter and Cohen, the sponsor of the change must build a guiding team. In several of the book’s case studies, guiding teams needed to be aggravated into openly and honestly sharing their personal viewpoints, agenda, and feelings. Once this blunt communication is in the open and the team members are interfacing effectively, the change vision, plans, and other preparation can commence.
In a graduate school class discussion led by Professor Kevin C. Desouza, several weaknesses in the Kotter/Cohen model were raised. First of these was the question: does an organization need a guiding team?
A Charismatic Leader
While environmental conditions may facilitate one approach over another, one could effectively argue that all change must be led by an individual with a single vision that others can buy into—effectively, a charismatic leader. This model has been successfully demonstrated throughout history by people from all social stations:
· Moses, the enigmatic prophet who permanently changed the cultures of two nations
· Confucius, the meditative wise man who created the baseline of Asian thought
· Jesus Christ, hailed as the Son of God, from whom the entire Christian gamut stems
· Muhammad, PBUH, the prophet of Islam, whose teachings guide nearly 1/3 of the world population
· Innocent III, the Pope who called for a volunteer army to aid of Byzantium, initiating the Crusades
· Lilburn Boggs, the Missouri governor who ordered an official genocide campaign within the United States
· Mahatma Gandhi, the pacifist leader whose example led to the independence of the Indian subcontinent
· Martin Luther King, Jr., the southern pastor who led the civil rights movement in the United States
All of these cases deal with the changing and leading of what is, effectively, a mob. The disorganized following inspired by all of these world-transformers lacked set procedure or structure but followed the two-step flow of information (from a source to opinion-shapers and from opinion-shapers to opinion followers). Once a charismatic leader emerges, the mob begins to think collectively, rather than individually and the will of the leader is projected across the followers. Change can be swift and decisive when this happens.
The conditions necessary for a charismatic leader to single-handedly emerge must include a state of societal or organizational pain. In terms of brain chemistry, the group to be manipulated must be experiencing overload in their prefrontal cortex, the portion of the brain that handles parallel, quick calculations and is tied closely to a person’s “fight-or-flight” mechanism. In this state, agitation, irrationality, and even outright anger underlie the functioning of the entire system. This is a state of psychological pain. In this state, the charismatic leader can communication his or her vision for a better future. By providing this path, the brain chemistry in followers will literally change. Rather than trying to weave one’s own way through apparent chaos, which uses large amounts of glucotic energy (blood sugar) and overtaxes the prefrontal cortex, members of “the mob” can follow someone else who can deal with the strain. Following is easy on the mind, as most people are used to the behavior and can transfer that functioning from the prefrontal cortex to the amygdale, the portion of the brain that can store very large quantities of data and handles habitual, or routine, behavior. This mental transition literally takes less energy and alleviates very real psychological and physical pain.
From this perspective, Kotter and Cohen’s previous chapter on creating urgency gains legitimacy, as overloading the prefrontal cortexes of employees with an extra-organizational stimuli creates the agitated state necessary for producing an effective charismatic leader with the vision that can alleviate that mental overburdening.
In the business world, as well as in history, a charismatic leader is one of the most important catalysts of effective change. Attempting to lead with only a council, but no clear head, hedges the guiding teams’ bets, but shows their lack of conviction to the employees. More importantly, it does not provide that same alleviation of psychological overload, as each member of the guiding council will inevitably present their ideas with a slightly different facet, creating a different chaos as employees see the company moving in several directions and not knowing where it will really end up. The guiding team’s only recourse would be to select an official spokesperson. Ironically, however, this spokesperson will become the new charismatic leader and end up driving the change through his or her own force of will, with the overall council relegated to a background role. We think of King Arthur frequently, but it is always “King Arthur and his knights”. Yet shouldn’t the Round Table have rendered them equal, such that we could say “Sir Gallahad and his knights” or “Sir Lancelot and his knights”? Their station at the Round Table was as high as that of King Arthur. King Arthur was the voice of the Round Table and it is his name with which we recognize the legends.
The Council
The counterargument, however, is that despite King Arthur being the charismatic leader, the Knights of the Round Table are the true change drivers. Examples of this can be seen throughout history as well:
· Pericles, the greatest of ancient Greek rulers, was elected by popular vote
· Before Gaius Julius ousted the democratic system, the Roman Senate appointed their figurehead rulers
· Edward I of England obtained his power to change based on his appointment from his father, King Henry
· Popes are elected by the conclave of Cardinals after the death of their predecessors
· Lenin and Stalin could only have come to power in Russia with the support of the Bolshevik, or the sustaining support of the Communist Party
· Adolph Hitler only obtained power because the Nazi party helped plan and support his bid
· Saddam Hussein relied on the Baath Party until they gave him enough power to make an effective coup
In all these examples, it was the organization, the party, who instigated change in their societies. The Greeks voted, the Roman senate convened, from the Preferiti a Holy Father is chosen.
This is, perhaps, most widely seen in contemporary corporate America. On October 8, 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported that the CEO of Sprint Nextel, a telecommunications company that has been steadily losing market share at an alarming rate, has been fired by the Board of Directors. They have installed an interim CEO and are actively looking for their next charismatic leader. In this case, the leader is not the CEO, as he can be fired or hired at will, depending on his performance. The true leaders are the Board of Directors. They decide the overall course of the organization on a level far above even the CEO. This is a prime case of where a council, or guiding team, changes the future of an organization.
The United States Supreme Court is another excellent example. The august body of seasoned judicial experts assesses cases brought up from lower courts and makes a decision on how the case (and the law associated with it) should be interpreted. Although there is often disagreement, the ruling they pass is unified and ultimate. The dissenting opinion may provide support for future judgments, but the verdict is final. It is a guiding team that interprets the constitutionality of the laws of the United States of America.
Double or Nothing
An example given in The Heart of Change revolved around a corporate merger where leaders of each business came with their personal agenda and tried to play a negotiation game with their cards held close to their chests. Dubbed the case of the “Blues versus the Greens”, the collective group proved inept until an individual managed to instigate change in the change group. Mr. Lockhart, who related the incident, described the efforts of a facilitator they hired to initiate change within their group. He relocated them from the company headquarters to a neutral off-site location. He then had to cut through the manipulative “politeness” that ensued. Finally, in frustration, the facilitator declared the entire exercise hopeless unless both parties would engage in honest exchange. The team responded and filled the entire next day with open conflict. As the hidden agenda, fears, concerns, and conflicts were exposed, the cards were all laid down on the table and an honest game could ensue. The change team was able to put together real solutions for the issues the companies desperately needed to resolve.
In this case, an individual instigated a change within the group that guided the organizational change. One could well argue that this proves that individuals must drive change, or that an open, honest guiding team is an effective change solution.
The Best Possible Team
Kotter and Cohen also made a point of the general truism that individuals who are pulled in must have the right set of skills. Of course they should. The problem, however, is that the change instigator (say the CIO) must know who the best people are. The problem then emerges that the CIO will choose those people with whose thought patterns he or she agrees or values. The CIO will select those people previously identified as leaders and team contributors. Unfortunately, this may well exclude other potential leaders and innovative, valuable contributors whom the change sponsor overlooks.
One of the most key of the overlooked leaders in an organization is the vocal change resistor. These leaders are often considered a dissident element in an organization and are labeled as “not a team player” or “loose cannon”, etc. The reality may be, however, that those who lead a “resistance” movement within the organization make some of the most important people to include on a change team, as they will be critical analysts of proposals and strategies, supporters of the eventual change roll-outs, and will no longer resist change, as it is their own idea. Furthermore, these resistors will better ensure that the product is usable, useful, and correctly aligned with the needs of the organization.
In the company at which I work, a new ERP system is currently in implementation. As negativity began to spread at the end user level, the success of the implementation was threatened by potential resistors refusing to use the tool. Fortunately, the underperforming project manager was replaced by an experienced, intelligent senior manager. As part of her taking the lead in the project, she began an aggressive campaign to have the software test group provide extra-thorough evaluations and ensure that the software as virtually bug-free. Concurrently, she assigned a mid-level manager who had worked with this system before and was particularly leery of it to find an effective way to customize the project reports, a feature that caused a large portion of the distrust. As she worked to develop a solution to the ERP shortcoming, she not only stopped resisting and spreading negativity, but became a proponent of the system, creating and evangelizing truly helpful functionality.
In short, the best possible team is not likely to ever be formed. Because of personal bias and lack of ability to recognize “unlikely assets”, the perfect team will remain a utopian fantasy.
The Hearts of Kotter and Cohen
While Kotter and Cohen’s advice in Chapter 3 contains some significantly dubious elements, the core concept is valid. A team, when necessary, should be carefully selected from a group all of the same seniority level who have different and complementary skill sets and effective contact networks. Furthermore, they do recognize the necessity of a central voice, or leader, but neglected to discuss the concept in its necessary order. They touch on the idea in Chapter 4: “Get the Vision Right.” Here they emphasize the need for the guiding team, especially the change sponsor, to develop a compelling and communicable vision of where the company is headed. The change sponsor, as he or she communicates this message, becomes a charismatic leader by default. If sincere, his or her message will provide the opportunity for employees to transfer much of the strain in their prefrontal cortex to their amygdale, enabling them to follow with a sense of calm and ease. Although other parts of the change process will still prove difficult, employees can maintain that underlying current of peace provided by an effective guiding team working in conjunction with their de facto visionary.
Sources:
· http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119187576737552592.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
· http://www.cio.com/article/120852/Intel_rsquo_s_E_Mail_Overload_Solution/1
· http://www.cio.com/article/24975/Change_Management_Understanding_the_Science_of_Change
· http://www.cio.com/article/24976/The_Rules_of_Change_Management
· Kotter, John P. and Cohen, Dan S. 2002. The Heart of Change: Real-Life stories of how people change their organizations. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA.
Book Review - Annie Wolf Mendoza
Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. William Bridges. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group, 2003. 144pp. $11.53 (ISBN 0738208248)
Book Review - Sandy Chan
Influencer: The Power to Change Anything. by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield ,Ron McMillan, Al Switzler. McGraw-Hill, 2007,
288 ps. $24.95 (ISBN: 0-071-48499-X)
288 ps. $24.95 (ISBN: 0-071-48499-X)
Book Review - M. Serkan Pektas
The essentials of Managing Change and Transition(Business Literacy for HR Professionals). Lauren Keller Johnson, Richard Luecke. Boston, MA. Harvard Business School Publishing, 2005. 265 pp. (ISBN: 1591395739)
Monday, October 8, 2007
Book Review - Jun Shao
Leading Change. Edited by John P. Kotter. Boston, MA Harvard Business School Press,1996. 187 pp. $26.95 (ISBN 0-875-84747-1)
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Reflection - Shan Zhao
Why Change?
My group’s case study, “getting the bosses’ approval”, starts this way: “The general idea---hardly unique to us----was to do business consistently across all of our operating units.” Wait a minute, there is a problem! Yes, consistent operation across the organization is a general and good idea, but why do we need it in this specific case? Will the benefit it brings be so great that it’s worth doing even it costs a lot? Or is it because everybody else is doing it, we also need to do it? Before anything happens, we should first ask why the organization must change. The decision of whether to change or not should be deeply rooted in the business strategies and user needs. In another words, the answer of “why change” should come from top and bottom of the organization. If the makeover is needed, the sense of urgency should already exist in the organization among team members. Whether the issue can be detected and spread through the organization is more a communication issue. The change initiative without a strong business case won’t go far. There is certainly no need to scare people.
This is easy to say, but hard to do. I often hear the story of “my manager wants me to implement a new system”. It is certainly possible that this new system is the best thing to improve the productivity, but maybe it’s not. As middle or entry level workers, we often don’t have a choice to ask why or challenge the decision, but can only implement it somehow. I assume most of us will work at middle management level and be assigned to work on something that the decision has already been made.
Having a convincing reason for change is the prerequisite for change initiatives. However, it doesn’t guarantee we’ll have successful changes. Choosing the right changing method is crucial.
Massive or Incremental?
We often see two types of changes. There are drastic, sudden changes, such as acquisitions, CXO replacements etc. The shift is obvious. There are also changes that are not so obvious, but gradual and subtle, where people may or may not feel the transformation. In fact, these small adjustments always happen at individual, departmental and organizational level. In order to make the big leap, small steps probably are needed before and after to make the smooth transition.
I like to think the first type of change like western medical methodologies while the latter as Chinese treatment. To treat a tumor, the western way is doing a surgery and cut it; while the Chinese way is using holistic medicine to shrink the tumor, and it may disappear eventually. Each method has its advantages and weakness, and thus applies to different situations. It’s important to differentiate what kind of change we refer to when we discuss change management.
The hard question is when to use what method? I’d prefer incremental changes most of the time. . Because radical changes often involve higher risks and greater impact to people. But they don’t necessarily bring more benefit to the organization than gradual changes. Moreover, results of massive changes are harder to predict. So why not walking as we build the bridge? Take small steps, test the water and decide what to do next. However, incremental changes are not always the solution. If the organization is really sick and it’s about live or die, big surgeries would be more effective than small dose. Frankly speaking, I don’t have a clear idea on this issue right now, but would like to explore it in the rest of the quarter.
Open or Close?
To me, there is no doubt that the change should be an open process. We talked in the class that the environment changes from open to close when a change initiative moves from plan to implement stage. How do we still keep it open in the implementing stage then? In some cases, the methods of agile development may shed some light: short iteration and client involvement. Not surprisingly, it ties to my argument on taking smaller steps. Small changes can be made and feedbacks are gathered from stakeholders. The direction are constantly being adjusted and refined. Besides the advantage of low risk, people will feel they’re respected, thus are more willing to participate in the process. My case study on the success of Springfield Remanufacturing is an extreme open change management example.
In class, we talked about how to measure the readiness of an organization. It seems only after the change happened, one would know whether the organization were ready for it. But we can run experiments before making the big move. A couple of volunteer based pilot change projects involving only a small number of people can be tried first. Then feedbacks are collected and analyzed. Another way is to have focus groups and provide a safe environment to discuss the potential change. The assumption of both methods is that the selected samples can represent the majority of people in the organization. In small companies, one can talk about the potential change to colleagues, and observe their reactions. If most people, especially the upper management, show resistance or doubt, the change initiative may need some adjustments. Conducting surveys will be a traditional way to collect information, but asking the right questions is the key. Take some small steps on that direction first would be a way to test whether people are ready for the full speed.
Last Points
1 We talked about four types of resistances in the class. There is another type where change is perceived as needed but not at high priority. In another word, people are willing change, but not now. It would be interesting to discuss how to treat each type of resistance differently.
2 In the examples Northrop Grumman, the recommendation from the consultants consists of 22 points. That’s too much. I wonder how many of those can be remembered after the presentation, not to mention how many will be actually used during the changing process.
Questions:
Below are the questions from readings and class discussions.
1 If the managers need to create a sense of urgency. How do they tell what they perceived is right, exactly the things needs to be done?
2 It’s almost for sure that not everybody will gain from changes. Some will even lose. When there is truly no benefit to show to a group, how to persuade them to change?
P.S. I enjoyed the class discussions from this week, and learned a lot from classmates as well as their experiences. I can put the issues into a specific context, and compare them with my experiences. That’s effective learning.
Usha Jose - Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart’s global supply chain is legendary and is lauded as one of the main reasons for the company’s past success. The company has shown great vision in its early adoption of bar code scanning and EDI. However, this kind of vision and success in implementation is missing in the company’s recent IT ventures, which might also have contributed to the company’s poor performance of late. Wal-Mart does not have a stellar online presence and is ranked 13th in web sales volume. Analysts have commented that Wal-Mart is not very successful in offering what their large customer base want to buy. Wal-Mart’s RFID attempt in 2003 under then CEO Dillman is a good example of unsuccessful change management.
The RFID initiative was to set RFID tags on select products shipped to its distribution centers by suppliers. RFID was found as a perfect solution for ‘out of stock problem’ and was promoted intensively as it helped to better manage in-store and distribution center inventories. Unlike barcode scanning it used wireless technology for monitoring, and did not warrant actual scanning. The project was not a huge success because it not only strained suppliers financially, but also did not have a well defined ROI. The project set off when there was a lack of resources and the market was not ready for it. Wal-Mart failed to convince majority of its suppliers, though some obliged just to keep Wal-Mart’s business. Only a very small percent of Wal-Mart’s 20,000 suppliers are currently using RFID. The company has also failed to meet its own goal of using RFID in 12 of its 137 distribution centers by the end of 2006. However they are still committed to the cause under the new CEO Ford.
Reference
http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN3043095220070830
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1825061220070719
http://www.cio.com/article/143451
The RFID initiative was to set RFID tags on select products shipped to its distribution centers by suppliers. RFID was found as a perfect solution for ‘out of stock problem’ and was promoted intensively as it helped to better manage in-store and distribution center inventories. Unlike barcode scanning it used wireless technology for monitoring, and did not warrant actual scanning. The project was not a huge success because it not only strained suppliers financially, but also did not have a well defined ROI. The project set off when there was a lack of resources and the market was not ready for it. Wal-Mart failed to convince majority of its suppliers, though some obliged just to keep Wal-Mart’s business. Only a very small percent of Wal-Mart’s 20,000 suppliers are currently using RFID. The company has also failed to meet its own goal of using RFID in 12 of its 137 distribution centers by the end of 2006. However they are still committed to the cause under the new CEO Ford.
Reference
http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN3043095220070830
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1825061220070719
http://www.cio.com/article/143451
Usha Jose - Maritz Travel
Maritz Travel is a global leader in travel industry. It is the biggest business unit of the 1 billion plus private held Maritz, and specializes in group travel and travel for corporate meetings. Following 911 attacks, travel industry suffered a major setback and many companies cut back on their travel expenses in order to meet the challenges of a slow economy.
When Rich Philips joined Maritz in 2003, things were not rosy, and he decided that there should be a way to woo back customers. He endorsed a data repository initiative to better integrate business, and also championed SOX compliance. This was followed by BPM revamp that started in 2006. In Maritz, BPM touches everything from billing to selling and this has helped the company to improve customer satisfaction and to reduce overhead by10%. This has in turn enabled them to invest in new product solutions. Rich’s decision to opt for a flexible software solution proved successful because it catered to the needs of loyal customers with whom Maritz wanted to remain flexible. Philips success in BPM installation also relied heavily on achieving a successful collaboration between Business, IT and Operations segments.
Reference
1. http://www.cio.com/cio100/detail/1749
2. www.cio.com/topic/1468/BPM
When Rich Philips joined Maritz in 2003, things were not rosy, and he decided that there should be a way to woo back customers. He endorsed a data repository initiative to better integrate business, and also championed SOX compliance. This was followed by BPM revamp that started in 2006. In Maritz, BPM touches everything from billing to selling and this has helped the company to improve customer satisfaction and to reduce overhead by10%. This has in turn enabled them to invest in new product solutions. Rich’s decision to opt for a flexible software solution proved successful because it catered to the needs of loyal customers with whom Maritz wanted to remain flexible. Philips success in BPM installation also relied heavily on achieving a successful collaboration between Business, IT and Operations segments.
Reference
1. http://www.cio.com/cio100/detail/1749
2. www.cio.com/topic/1468/BPM
Usha Jose - McDonald
McDonalds’ sales declined considerably over last few years as the health awareness wave swept America. The company was criticized widely for childhood obesity and unhealthy products. McDonalds’ share prices fell down to $ 12 in 2003. As people struggled to make healthy choices the company faced an important challenge to adapt to new customer needs.
To face this, McDonalds introduced a new menu with an addition of many healthy food choices. They also offered nutritional information for their products. Apart from this, new marketing strategies played a big part in re-establishing sales. New ads showed healthy kids leading a very active life style, and health conscious moms who were concerned about “what goes inside” choosing McDonalds. The company revamped its image as one that promoted a healthy living style, just what many Americans were hoping to achieve. Even now its main products are burgers and fries, which far outsell its healthier product choices. But by offering customers healthy choices, the company has cleverly managed to win back its customers and has achieved a cleaner image. Its stock price has soared to more than $55.
McDonalds’ dollar menu which they introduced to beat competition is another example of successful change management from the company’s history.
References
1.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/business/1310ap_unstoppable_mcdonalds.html
2.http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN1632181520070717
3. http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN1320348720070413
To face this, McDonalds introduced a new menu with an addition of many healthy food choices. They also offered nutritional information for their products. Apart from this, new marketing strategies played a big part in re-establishing sales. New ads showed healthy kids leading a very active life style, and health conscious moms who were concerned about “what goes inside” choosing McDonalds. The company revamped its image as one that promoted a healthy living style, just what many Americans were hoping to achieve. Even now its main products are burgers and fries, which far outsell its healthier product choices. But by offering customers healthy choices, the company has cleverly managed to win back its customers and has achieved a cleaner image. Its stock price has soared to more than $55.
McDonalds’ dollar menu which they introduced to beat competition is another example of successful change management from the company’s history.
References
1.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/business/1310ap_unstoppable_mcdonalds.html
2.http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN1632181520070717
3. http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN1320348720070413
Book Review - Sinsath Shameer
Managing at the speed of change : How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. Daryl Conner, New York : Villard Books, 1993. 282 pp. $22.00. (ISBN 0-679-40684-0)
Book Review - Cen (Mia) Zhao
Change Management in Information Services. Lyndon Pugh, Aldershot, Hampshire, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007, 242 pp. $99.95. (ISBN: 0-754-64665-3)
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
M. Serkan Pektas - Volkswagen
Skoda: Volkswagen's Hot Growth Engine[1]
German automaker Volkswagen (VOWG) is wielding a secret bullet to challenge rivals Toyota (TM) and General Motors (GM) in global markets—and it isn't a new small car. It's VW's Czech-built Skoda cars. Since being taken over by German car giant Volkswagen in the early 1990s, the much maligned Czech manufacturer has rapidly risen up the auto rankings.[2] Backed by VW know-how and investments the design — both style and engineering — has improved greatly.[3]
A strong player in Western Europe and a market leader in Central and Eastern Europe, Skoda is now speeding into Asia's emerging markets with a vengeance. Revenues hit $5.2 billion in 2006 as customers in 100 countries around the world snapped up its well-built cars, and profit jumped 22% to $491 million. A new Russian factory in Kaluga, south of Moscow, will start producing Skodas and VWs in October.
In India, Skoda has built its own assembly plant, separate from parent VW's Pune factory, where it aims to produce 30,000 cars a year. Skoda also assembles cars in China, Ukraine, Bosnia, and Kazakhstan—and is considering a lower-priced model that could go head-to-head with Renault's (RENA) no-frills Logan.
[1] Business Week. (2007). Skoda: Volkswagen's Hot Growth Engine. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2007/gb20070914_057808.htm?chan=search
[2] BBC News. (2000). Skoda has last laugh. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/654973.stm
[3] Škoda Auto. (2007, September 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:48, September 30, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%A0koda_Auto&oldid=160886355
M. Serkan Pektas - Iraq War
The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, and their domestic and foreign supporters was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction.[1] These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests. In the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein became imminent. After the invasion some weapons were found, however they were not in usable condition and were not part of the WMD development programs for which the U.S. invaded. Some U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No evidence of any substantial al-Qaeda connection has been found.
The U.S. rationale for the Iraq War has faced heavy criticism from an array of popular and official sources both inside and outside the United States. Both proponents and opponents of the invasion have also criticized the prosecution of the war effort along a number of other lines. Most significantly, critics have assailed the U.S. and its allies for not devoting enough troops to the mission, not adequately planning for post-invasion Iraq, and for permitting and perpetrating widespread human rights abuses. As the war has progressed, critics have also railed against the high human and financial costs. [2]
Criticisms include:
· Legality of the invasion
· Inadequate troop levels (a RAND study stated that 500,000 troops would be required for success[3])
· Insufficient post-invasion plans
· Human casualties
· Financial costs (approximately $454 billion spent as of 9/07)
· Adverse effect on global war on terror
· Negative impact on Israel
· Endangerment of religious minorities
· Damage to America's traditional alliances and influence
· Economic considerations concerning Iraq's oil supply
[1] CNN.com. (2007). War on Iraq. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/
[2] Iraq War. (2007, September 30). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:10, September 30, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&oldid=161319961
[3] Quinlivan, J. T. (2006). Burden of Victory The Painful Arithmetic of Stability Operations. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html
The U.S. rationale for the Iraq War has faced heavy criticism from an array of popular and official sources both inside and outside the United States. Both proponents and opponents of the invasion have also criticized the prosecution of the war effort along a number of other lines. Most significantly, critics have assailed the U.S. and its allies for not devoting enough troops to the mission, not adequately planning for post-invasion Iraq, and for permitting and perpetrating widespread human rights abuses. As the war has progressed, critics have also railed against the high human and financial costs. [2]
Criticisms include:
· Legality of the invasion
· Inadequate troop levels (a RAND study stated that 500,000 troops would be required for success[3])
· Insufficient post-invasion plans
· Human casualties
· Financial costs (approximately $454 billion spent as of 9/07)
· Adverse effect on global war on terror
· Negative impact on Israel
· Endangerment of religious minorities
· Damage to America's traditional alliances and influence
· Economic considerations concerning Iraq's oil supply
[1] CNN.com. (2007). War on Iraq. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/
[2] Iraq War. (2007, September 30). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:10, September 30, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&oldid=161319961
[3] Quinlivan, J. T. (2006). Burden of Victory The Painful Arithmetic of Stability Operations. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html
M. Serkan Pektas - 2001 Turkey Economic Crisis
2001 Turkey Economic Crisis[1]
In February 1990, Turkey applied to the IMF for the full convertibility of the lira. Up to January 2000, managed floating exchange rate system was operative. At the end of 1999, Turkey signed a stand-by agreement with the IMF and started to implement a stabilization program one of the pillars of which was a pre-announced crawling peg exchange rate regime. The novelty of this exchange rate regime was that both the exit strategy and the date of exit were publicly known at the very beginning of the program: It was announced that, after eighteen months, exchange rate would be allowed to fluctuate in a continuously widening band. However, after a sky-high overnight rate as much as 6200 percent in uncompounded terms and a huge decline in foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank, on February 23, 2001, just four months before the exit day, the exchange rate system collapsed and the Central Bank declared that it would allow the lira to float freely. By this announcement, the dollar rate jumped from a level of 685 thousand liras to 958 thousand liras in a day.[2] Much of the blame for Turkey's political and economic crisis can be laid at the door of the country's troubled banking sector.[3]
[1] CNN.com. (2001). Q&A: Turkey's economic crisis. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/14/turkey.qa/
[2] The 2000-2001 Financial Crisis In Turkey. Fatih Özatay and Güven Sak. Central Bank of Turkey and Ankara University. August 2002 (revised).
[3] BBC News. (2001). Turkish banks at root of crisis. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1184117.stm
In February 1990, Turkey applied to the IMF for the full convertibility of the lira. Up to January 2000, managed floating exchange rate system was operative. At the end of 1999, Turkey signed a stand-by agreement with the IMF and started to implement a stabilization program one of the pillars of which was a pre-announced crawling peg exchange rate regime. The novelty of this exchange rate regime was that both the exit strategy and the date of exit were publicly known at the very beginning of the program: It was announced that, after eighteen months, exchange rate would be allowed to fluctuate in a continuously widening band. However, after a sky-high overnight rate as much as 6200 percent in uncompounded terms and a huge decline in foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank, on February 23, 2001, just four months before the exit day, the exchange rate system collapsed and the Central Bank declared that it would allow the lira to float freely. By this announcement, the dollar rate jumped from a level of 685 thousand liras to 958 thousand liras in a day.[2] Much of the blame for Turkey's political and economic crisis can be laid at the door of the country's troubled banking sector.[3]
[1] CNN.com. (2001). Q&A: Turkey's economic crisis. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/14/turkey.qa/
[2] The 2000-2001 Financial Crisis In Turkey. Fatih Özatay and Güven Sak. Central Bank of Turkey and Ankara University. August 2002 (revised).
[3] BBC News. (2001). Turkish banks at root of crisis. Retrieved Sep. 30, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1184117.stm