This class has been my favorite throughout the quarter; I have learned more than I have in any of my other classes. It has also been the most time and effort-consuming, but as the saying goes, whatever you get out of something depends on what you put into it. I have gotten a lot out of this class because I invested the time and put forth the effort (which has not so much been the case with some of my other classes). I made more effort to do well in this class because I saw a great deal of value in what we were learning. In fact, this class has made me realize that management is the track I would like take in my career. I haven’t decided exactly what type of management or the field in which I would like to work, but I know that working with and leading people is what I want to do.
Beyond my own personal effort, I also contribute the success of this class to many of its aspects. One is the overall organization and structure. I find it much easier to learn and succeed when I know exactly what is expected of me. Change is something I am perfectly capable of handling, but if too much change occurs and new expectations are not documented well I find it difficult to keep track of the assignment requirements. I am not interested in following assignment requirements for the sole purpose of getting a good grade. Requirements often force one to learn something new and if they are not clearly documented somewhere then they can’t be followed and nothing new can be learned.
Another aspect of the class that led to its success was the book review assignment. When I first saw that we had to read another book in addition to the two assigned for the course I was a little discouraged. I didn’t know how I would find the time to do all the reading for the class. However, the book I chose was extremely useful and I ended up learning a lot that I wouldn’t have learned just by reading the assigned books. I also benefited from looking at my classmates’ book reviews. A number of people have told me that they enjoyed their books as well. In fact, I plan on reading a few of them over winter break.
A third part of the class that contributed to its success were the videos of CEOs describing the different problems they have encountered in their careers. Often it is hard to apply what is being learned in a classroom to the real world. In academia the answers are all laid out making it seem that all one has to do is follow the steps listed in a book or a paper in order to solve a problem in a real-world situation. However, those who have tried to take what they have learned in school and apply it in their work know that it can be much more difficult than that. The videos not only showed what kinds of problems might come up for managers, they also showed how some of what we have been learning in class can actually be applied. They also demonstrated something else I think is really important: there is no perfectly right or wrong way to go about solving a problem. Sometimes the approach a person takes fails. Even if all the steps listed in a book are taken, the approach may fail. It is reassuring to know that there is no direct correlation between never failing and being a successful manager.
As I mentioned above, this was my favorite class this quarter. I found it a very valuable use of my time. I think it had the right mix of reading, writing, and videos. I think if this class is run in a similar fashion next year, it will also be valuable for the students taking it.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Reflection - Manaswita Manaswita
Mr. Ramani's talk on Wednesday on inspiration and motivation was enriching and uplifting. I think he reflected on some of the great points that we rarely talk about in or outside the class with our friends or peers. I remember, last week I was having chit chat with my friends and we were talking about the fact that some of the big names in the corporate world are college drop outs because they knew what they wanted to do. Struck with the idea and with the urgency to execute their idea, these people started or led some of the great corporations of the world- Steve Jobs of Apple Corporation, Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates, Paul Allen of Microsoft, Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries in India, Michael Dell of Dell or Larry Ellison of Oracle Corporation etc.
As the fierce competition is making the world drift towards the materialistic gains, the mindset of the generation is changing. For us, the great and inspiring people are Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sam Walton etc. I am not saying that their life and achievements are not inspiring. No doubt, they have done commendable work and are champions in their fields of work, the reason why we think them as today's world leaders and we often talk about them.
In the process we forget that there are other great and inspiring people- living and dead- from different parts of the world. Mr. Ramani's talk enlightened me and reminded me of a documentary on the current and the fourteenth Dalai Lama- Tenzin Gyatso, which I had chance to watch recently in the South Asian Seattle Film Festival. The title of the documentary was "10 Questions for the Dalai Lama". The film maker from America had the opportunity to visit Dalai Lama in India and ask him 10 questions. He posed questions on the hope for peace in the Middle East, internet freedom, Dalai Lama’s take on China, should a society give up its traditions for success etc.
The documentary touched me and left me with an aversion for the Chinese Communist Government. Not that I wasn't aware of Chinese invasion of Tibet, its motive to suppress the traditional practices in Tibet, to persecute Dalai Lama and monks, its restrictions on religion and on freedom of expression, free flow of information etc. The world except China respects Dalai Lama and bestows him reverence and love wherever he goes. Recently he was awarded the US Congressional Gold Medal, the highest US civilian honor.
However, there is another part of the story. Ironically, the companies in the west want to do business with China, today's fastest growing economy in the world. Of course, China is the land of opportunities for all kinds of companies and no company would like to let this opportunity go in vain. So, in China they follow what the Chinese Government dictates and search engines of Yahoo Inc. and Google censor the display of articles related to Dalai Lama, Falun Gong or about the human rights’ abuses on Chinese Government’s stance.
I understand, if the companies want to do business with China then they need to follow the local law but in a way the companies of democratic countries are defying the principles of democracy. Would it be wrong to say that they are supporting Chinese Government’s approach towards the dissemination of information? Is this unethical business practice, when on the one hand the Governments of Western countries acknowledge Dalai Lama’s struggle for freedom and hold him as a reverend figure whereas on the other hand the western companies contradict their Government’s standpoint? This is where the principles, values and business ethics of the companies come into question but we cannot dream of a perfect, utopian society. The companies would keep doing business with China and the prey country- Tibet could just hope for support from West even when they know that they have nothing to offer to them in exchange and Charles Darwin knew it well when he used the phrase “survival of the fittest” in his theory of evolution.
As the fierce competition is making the world drift towards the materialistic gains, the mindset of the generation is changing. For us, the great and inspiring people are Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sam Walton etc. I am not saying that their life and achievements are not inspiring. No doubt, they have done commendable work and are champions in their fields of work, the reason why we think them as today's world leaders and we often talk about them.
In the process we forget that there are other great and inspiring people- living and dead- from different parts of the world. Mr. Ramani's talk enlightened me and reminded me of a documentary on the current and the fourteenth Dalai Lama- Tenzin Gyatso, which I had chance to watch recently in the South Asian Seattle Film Festival. The title of the documentary was "10 Questions for the Dalai Lama". The film maker from America had the opportunity to visit Dalai Lama in India and ask him 10 questions. He posed questions on the hope for peace in the Middle East, internet freedom, Dalai Lama’s take on China, should a society give up its traditions for success etc.
The documentary touched me and left me with an aversion for the Chinese Communist Government. Not that I wasn't aware of Chinese invasion of Tibet, its motive to suppress the traditional practices in Tibet, to persecute Dalai Lama and monks, its restrictions on religion and on freedom of expression, free flow of information etc. The world except China respects Dalai Lama and bestows him reverence and love wherever he goes. Recently he was awarded the US Congressional Gold Medal, the highest US civilian honor.
However, there is another part of the story. Ironically, the companies in the west want to do business with China, today's fastest growing economy in the world. Of course, China is the land of opportunities for all kinds of companies and no company would like to let this opportunity go in vain. So, in China they follow what the Chinese Government dictates and search engines of Yahoo Inc. and Google censor the display of articles related to Dalai Lama, Falun Gong or about the human rights’ abuses on Chinese Government’s stance.
I understand, if the companies want to do business with China then they need to follow the local law but in a way the companies of democratic countries are defying the principles of democracy. Would it be wrong to say that they are supporting Chinese Government’s approach towards the dissemination of information? Is this unethical business practice, when on the one hand the Governments of Western countries acknowledge Dalai Lama’s struggle for freedom and hold him as a reverend figure whereas on the other hand the western companies contradict their Government’s standpoint? This is where the principles, values and business ethics of the companies come into question but we cannot dream of a perfect, utopian society. The companies would keep doing business with China and the prey country- Tibet could just hope for support from West even when they know that they have nothing to offer to them in exchange and Charles Darwin knew it well when he used the phrase “survival of the fittest” in his theory of evolution.
Reflection - Annie Wolf Mendoza
If I ran a company that produced products so desirable that 300 people were willing to pay $200.00 for a T-shirt on the same day I would feel pretty good about my business. When that happened in 2005 to Sidney Toledano, Chief Executive Officer for Dior, he panicked and pulled the T-shirts off the shelves. What made him do such a seemingly crazy thing? Exclusivity. The consumers buying the T-shirts were teenagers and Toledano realized that “too much of a young following risks damaging a brand’s prestige and potentially denting its prospects for long-term growth” (Passariello).
Dior began as a couture brand for wealthy women. Over time the fashion house has added clothing lines for men as well, but again, for those with a large amount of disposable income. In 1994 when Dior sales were slumping and the brand was earning a reputation of being outdated, Bernard Arnault, Dior’s owner, cranked up the advertising campaign and began buying back licenses the company had sold years ago when it was trying to save itself from financial ruin. Arnault also hired three new designers, one of which was John Galliano. It was Galliano who first began creating designs at Dior that appealed, almost exclusively, to younger consumers. Among his creations was the designer label bag; he was the first in the industry to put such a product on the market. Dior also starting selling key chains and T-shirts displaying the brand’s logo. These items where sold at lower prices so younger consumers could afford to buy them. The products were successful and produced impressive profits for the company.
However, unlike older generations, young consumers are not as devoted to brand names. They tend to jump around from brand to brand. They aren’t necessarily interested in the quality of the products; they are interested in owning upscale brand name products. Dior realized that depending on consumers who were mainly interested in the brand name and not the quality was not going to keep them in business, hence their new focus on targeting consumers in their 30s.
It is hard to say where the fashion house will be a year from now. Running a business that revolves around expensive luxury good is incredibly tricky. Consumers are picky and fickle, designers rely on their creativity to create new designs, executives want the goods to remain desirable and appear exclusive to customers. It is a very delicate balance that could easily topple over if one side is pulled in a direction that goes against the others. If there is a field where agility and change management is more relevant I can’t think of one.
References:
Jones, Liz. Daily Mail (London). 1st, pg 41. July 2, 2007.
Passariello, Christina. The Globe and Mail (Canada). Globe Style; Designers; A
Grown-up Makeover, pg L7. October 6, 2007.
http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-dior?cat=biz-fin. Access, October 29,
2007.
Dior began as a couture brand for wealthy women. Over time the fashion house has added clothing lines for men as well, but again, for those with a large amount of disposable income. In 1994 when Dior sales were slumping and the brand was earning a reputation of being outdated, Bernard Arnault, Dior’s owner, cranked up the advertising campaign and began buying back licenses the company had sold years ago when it was trying to save itself from financial ruin. Arnault also hired three new designers, one of which was John Galliano. It was Galliano who first began creating designs at Dior that appealed, almost exclusively, to younger consumers. Among his creations was the designer label bag; he was the first in the industry to put such a product on the market. Dior also starting selling key chains and T-shirts displaying the brand’s logo. These items where sold at lower prices so younger consumers could afford to buy them. The products were successful and produced impressive profits for the company.
However, unlike older generations, young consumers are not as devoted to brand names. They tend to jump around from brand to brand. They aren’t necessarily interested in the quality of the products; they are interested in owning upscale brand name products. Dior realized that depending on consumers who were mainly interested in the brand name and not the quality was not going to keep them in business, hence their new focus on targeting consumers in their 30s.
It is hard to say where the fashion house will be a year from now. Running a business that revolves around expensive luxury good is incredibly tricky. Consumers are picky and fickle, designers rely on their creativity to create new designs, executives want the goods to remain desirable and appear exclusive to customers. It is a very delicate balance that could easily topple over if one side is pulled in a direction that goes against the others. If there is a field where agility and change management is more relevant I can’t think of one.
References:
Jones, Liz. Daily Mail (London). 1st, pg 41. July 2, 2007.
Passariello, Christina. The Globe and Mail (Canada). Globe Style; Designers; A
Grown-up Makeover, pg L7. October 6, 2007.
http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-dior?cat=biz-fin. Access, October 29,
2007.
Reflection - M. Serkan Pektas
Prisoner’s Dilemma
The Prisoner's Dilemma was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the "Prisoner's Dilemma" name (Poundstone, 1992).[1]
The prisoner’s dilemma was used to interrogate people in former Soviet Union to reveal the secret groups working against the government. It was simply testing the trust between two people to get the truth. It has some points, but mostly the prisoners accuse each other to get free, even if they both are innocent.
The dilemma simply works like that. Each prisoner interrogated in different rooms. However, both know that:
- If they do not speak they are sentenced for one year,
- If both speak, they are sentenced for three years,
- If one of them speaks, the prisoner who speaks goes free and other one is sentenced for 5 years.
According to this setting, at least one of them is going to admit and the crime is revealed. There are three possibilities in this situation:
- Both of them are guilty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U-3RzjNLXQ)
- One of them is guilty
- Both of them are innocent.
The first assumption for this situation is that both of them are guilty, the best situation for them is not to speak, but there are some other thoughts when they know the above mentioned possibilities:
- Both of them think that the other one would speak to them, so the best case for him/her to speak, too.
- One of the prisoners thinks that the other one is not going to speak, and instead of spending one year in jail, the best case for the prisoner is simply to speak what they did and he/she goes free.
The assumption of the interrogators is that each prisoner wants to minimize his/her sentence and the best case for them is not to speak. However, the best case for an individual is to assume that the other prisoner is not going to speak but he/she is. Hence, both get sentenced.
In the second possibility, the innocent prisoner thinks that the best possible case for him/her is to admit what he/she has been accused for, and hopes that the other one is not. The guilty prisoner knew already the best alternative for the other prisoner is speaking, so he also speaks for minimizing his sentence.
In the third possibility, they both think that the best possible case for him/her is to admit what he/she has been accused for, and hopes that the other one is not.
However, the secret groups had improved counter argument for this situation. To avoid the possibility of thinking that “speak and go free”, they started to punish their members who spoke and went free. This strategy was strengthened the collaboration between prisoners, and they did not speak.
In game theory, the prisoner’s dilemma this is a type of non-zero-sum game. The similar thoughts can be applied to the business world. The equally balanced companies that are targeting the same customers should relay each other, when they are planning to increase the prices of their products or services correspondingly. Their dilemma is whether maximizing total profit of all companies or to maximize single company’s profit. This usually occurs in an oligopolistic industry, where there are a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products. It is a formal agreement among firms and called as cartel. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these.[2] The aim of such collusion is to increase individual member's profits by reducing competition.
[1] Prisoner's dilemma. (2007, November 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:48, November 30, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prisoner%27s_dilemma&oldid=173469681
[2] Cartel. (2007, November 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:15, November 30, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartel&oldid=174189656
The Prisoner's Dilemma was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the "Prisoner's Dilemma" name (Poundstone, 1992).[1]
The prisoner’s dilemma was used to interrogate people in former Soviet Union to reveal the secret groups working against the government. It was simply testing the trust between two people to get the truth. It has some points, but mostly the prisoners accuse each other to get free, even if they both are innocent.
The dilemma simply works like that. Each prisoner interrogated in different rooms. However, both know that:
- If they do not speak they are sentenced for one year,
- If both speak, they are sentenced for three years,
- If one of them speaks, the prisoner who speaks goes free and other one is sentenced for 5 years.
According to this setting, at least one of them is going to admit and the crime is revealed. There are three possibilities in this situation:
- Both of them are guilty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U-3RzjNLXQ)
- One of them is guilty
- Both of them are innocent.
The first assumption for this situation is that both of them are guilty, the best situation for them is not to speak, but there are some other thoughts when they know the above mentioned possibilities:
- Both of them think that the other one would speak to them, so the best case for him/her to speak, too.
- One of the prisoners thinks that the other one is not going to speak, and instead of spending one year in jail, the best case for the prisoner is simply to speak what they did and he/she goes free.
The assumption of the interrogators is that each prisoner wants to minimize his/her sentence and the best case for them is not to speak. However, the best case for an individual is to assume that the other prisoner is not going to speak but he/she is. Hence, both get sentenced.
In the second possibility, the innocent prisoner thinks that the best possible case for him/her is to admit what he/she has been accused for, and hopes that the other one is not. The guilty prisoner knew already the best alternative for the other prisoner is speaking, so he also speaks for minimizing his sentence.
In the third possibility, they both think that the best possible case for him/her is to admit what he/she has been accused for, and hopes that the other one is not.
However, the secret groups had improved counter argument for this situation. To avoid the possibility of thinking that “speak and go free”, they started to punish their members who spoke and went free. This strategy was strengthened the collaboration between prisoners, and they did not speak.
In game theory, the prisoner’s dilemma this is a type of non-zero-sum game. The similar thoughts can be applied to the business world. The equally balanced companies that are targeting the same customers should relay each other, when they are planning to increase the prices of their products or services correspondingly. Their dilemma is whether maximizing total profit of all companies or to maximize single company’s profit. This usually occurs in an oligopolistic industry, where there are a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products. It is a formal agreement among firms and called as cartel. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these.[2] The aim of such collusion is to increase individual member's profits by reducing competition.
[1] Prisoner's dilemma. (2007, November 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:48, November 30, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prisoner%27s_dilemma&oldid=173469681
[2] Cartel. (2007, November 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:15, November 30, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartel&oldid=174189656
Reflection - John Tulinsky
Several blog posts have been devoted to Wednesday’s class; when we listened to Mr. Ramani speak. I’d like to add another one. When one considers the variety of topics covered by blog posts, book reports, case studies and class lectures throughout the quarter it’s clear that change management is much more than just one discrete thing. It seems that regardless of one’s specific job description it will be encountered. Not only will it be encountered, but it will be encountered multiple times and over the course of our careers we’ll experience it in different ways. In one case we may be making the hard choices associated with downsizing; the next time we may be the one who is laid-off. And this brings me back to Mr. Ramani’s lecture. Many of the things that he said were reminiscent of the Fast Company article that I reviewed early in the quarter. The article was an interview with Peter Koestenbaum, a philosophy professor turned management consultant. One of his arguments is that in modern business too much focus is given to technology and technical change. Attempts to improve processes through rigorous, technical practices such as Six Sigma are commonplace, even when they are inappropriate for a particular business. Like Mr. Ramani, Koestenbaum recommends that the best preparation for leadership is to study the classics and look to history’s great people (I won’t just say “great men” ;-) for inspiration. Since we can expect to experience change in many different forms over the course of our lives and careers we must be able to adapt our thoughts and actions to many different situations. A classical education emphasizes the ability to think critically, clearly express our thoughts, and support our arguments; all are skills that will serve you well regardless of your specific job description.
Another one of Mr. Ramani’s points was the importance of hard work, even that hard work is more important than raw talent. Scientific American published an article last month reviewing a large body of research that supports this very point (Dweck, 2007). When children are continually complemented on their intelligence they tend to give up quickly when they encounter a difficult problem because they believe that they have the ability to do it. At its worst, this can lead to the condition of learned helplessness. In the workplace this can manifest itself as an employee who requires constant praise. Instead, when a person views a mistake as a problem to be solved they are much more likely to eventually succeed.
As Rachel said in her blog post, at this time of year it’s easy for our motivation to waver. However, for this quarter at least, the hard work is nearly done. ;-)
References
Dweck, C.S. (2007, December). The Secret to Raising Smart Kids [Electronic Version]. Scientific American Mind. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids
Another one of Mr. Ramani’s points was the importance of hard work, even that hard work is more important than raw talent. Scientific American published an article last month reviewing a large body of research that supports this very point (Dweck, 2007). When children are continually complemented on their intelligence they tend to give up quickly when they encounter a difficult problem because they believe that they have the ability to do it. At its worst, this can lead to the condition of learned helplessness. In the workplace this can manifest itself as an employee who requires constant praise. Instead, when a person views a mistake as a problem to be solved they are much more likely to eventually succeed.
As Rachel said in her blog post, at this time of year it’s easy for our motivation to waver. However, for this quarter at least, the hard work is nearly done. ;-)
References
Dweck, C.S. (2007, December). The Secret to Raising Smart Kids [Electronic Version]. Scientific American Mind. Retrieved November 30, 2007 from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids
Reflection - David Gui
In my opinion, change management is a vague term without clear definition; a lot of actions or implementations organizations of different sizes take can be claimed as change management. Therefore, although I have kept hearing this term from various courses, internship, and other work experiences, I am still puzzled by what change management really means. For this reason, the class has been very instructive and enlightening for me, as I have learned a great deal of why change is important for organizations of any size and how organizations tackle issues when facing change. The two books assigned for the course, accompanied with the additional resources have provided very insightful models, mechanisms, and theories about modern organizational change management; and I also appreciate the instructor’s efforts of using video cases from Stanford Graduate School of Business as a major teaching tool, as well as using blog as the major communication tool for the class.
For the video cases, I must admit that I liked every single one of them, since they provided real-life examples how particular change management issues are faced and change management initiatives are implemented by organizations of any size in any industry. I believe this is a very valuable addition to the theories we have touched base by reading the books and other assigned materials. For me personally, spending hours reading a book is not as fruitful as watching an interactive video, because by watching the video, I could also engage in real-time discussion with other classmates. Therefore, for future class, if it is possible, I think the instructor may consider building a “video case database”, which stores all the videos we watched and new ones found. Also, besides the Stanford Graduate School of Business, I think there are other useful educational resources where video cases could be found. This database can also be used for other related courses.
Using the blog as the communication tool throughout the quarter was a really excellent idea, for we had chance to see what other classmates’ thoughts about change management. Overall, the blog was a really nice tool for serving such purpose; however, I found it was somewhat problematic to use due to some usability issues, mainly because of the large volume of items posted in the blog; and this was getting more serious as the quarter getting close to end. Over the quarter, the blog has served as the storing and displaying reserve for more than 20 students’ works; these included reflections, book reviews, etc., not counting the numbers of comments we posted. Therefore it is no surprise it became so crowded and hard to manage. For me, the item list on the right side of the blog interface was messy and findability of items was not well supported. To tackle this issue, I would recommend that build a hierarchical folder structure for the item list, which all items will be grouped according to their types. For example, reflections can be bundled into a group called “Reflection”, and all book reviews can be kept under the group “Book Review”. An alternative solution to this issue is placing all items submitted by one person under one folder. I am not familiar with blogspot.com therefore I do not know how much it can score for information architecture functionalities; but if it is not that good at such aspect, a radical solution will be to identify another blog hosting Website which provides better information architecture functionalities. I am not a regular blog user therefore I cannot recommend a specific blog hosting site; I also understand that since the instructor is already busy enough on a daily basis, he may not have the time to explore another site. However, I also believe that a better managed blog will better benefit both the instructor and students; and because of the instructor’s busyness, an easy-to-manage blog would be desired. Moreover, this is the blog for a change management class; therefore it should be more “change-adaptive”.
For the video cases, I must admit that I liked every single one of them, since they provided real-life examples how particular change management issues are faced and change management initiatives are implemented by organizations of any size in any industry. I believe this is a very valuable addition to the theories we have touched base by reading the books and other assigned materials. For me personally, spending hours reading a book is not as fruitful as watching an interactive video, because by watching the video, I could also engage in real-time discussion with other classmates. Therefore, for future class, if it is possible, I think the instructor may consider building a “video case database”, which stores all the videos we watched and new ones found. Also, besides the Stanford Graduate School of Business, I think there are other useful educational resources where video cases could be found. This database can also be used for other related courses.
Using the blog as the communication tool throughout the quarter was a really excellent idea, for we had chance to see what other classmates’ thoughts about change management. Overall, the blog was a really nice tool for serving such purpose; however, I found it was somewhat problematic to use due to some usability issues, mainly because of the large volume of items posted in the blog; and this was getting more serious as the quarter getting close to end. Over the quarter, the blog has served as the storing and displaying reserve for more than 20 students’ works; these included reflections, book reviews, etc., not counting the numbers of comments we posted. Therefore it is no surprise it became so crowded and hard to manage. For me, the item list on the right side of the blog interface was messy and findability of items was not well supported. To tackle this issue, I would recommend that build a hierarchical folder structure for the item list, which all items will be grouped according to their types. For example, reflections can be bundled into a group called “Reflection”, and all book reviews can be kept under the group “Book Review”. An alternative solution to this issue is placing all items submitted by one person under one folder. I am not familiar with blogspot.com therefore I do not know how much it can score for information architecture functionalities; but if it is not that good at such aspect, a radical solution will be to identify another blog hosting Website which provides better information architecture functionalities. I am not a regular blog user therefore I cannot recommend a specific blog hosting site; I also understand that since the instructor is already busy enough on a daily basis, he may not have the time to explore another site. However, I also believe that a better managed blog will better benefit both the instructor and students; and because of the instructor’s busyness, an easy-to-manage blog would be desired. Moreover, this is the blog for a change management class; therefore it should be more “change-adaptive”.
Reflection - David Gui
Thoughts about traditional and CAS approaches for change
Jill Woelfer’s presentation about the Jazz Metaphor was very interesting and enlightening as it stimulated me to think about one question: which approach is better for organizational change, the traditional, hierarchical approach or the complex adaptive system (CAS) approach?
From Jill’s presentation and Facilitating Organization Change we can tell that there are significant differences between the traditional and CAS approaches. Also, as I was doing research for the term paper, which was on eBay’s acquisition and partnership failure in China, I had the chance to become more knowledgeable about the differences between a hierarchical organization and a flat organization. In the 20th century, as organizations in various industries grew, hierarchical structure was popular in these organizations, as such structure provided the advantage of command and control for the organizations, and this trend had continued for decades and almost all major organizations had exercised the structure. However, with the advent of globalization and widespread of technology, hierarchical organizations had begun to downsize and reduce workforces. This has promoted a lot of smaller organizations, who would in turn exercise flat structure. Also, a lot of flat-structured organizations are products of traditional organizations’ acquisitions and partnerships; these companies’ values and employee perspectives can be so different from their master organizations.
By reading Jill’s paper and listening to her presentation, we can tell that a CAS type organization always requires agility and resilience; therefore it can efficiently make decisions to adopt changes. On the other side, such agility and resilience would seldom present in a traditional and hierarchical type organization, because rules and policies will always exist which require the organization to go through a strict and legitimate consensus gathering and decision-making process. Moreover, if that CAS organization is a subsidiary of a traditional and hierarchical organization, its ability to be agile and resilient may be impeded by its master organization, as the master organization’s desire to maintain command and control over the subsidiary would do such impediment. eBay’s failure in China is a typical example of how master organization can harm a subsidiary; the underlying reason for the failure was not only due to the lack of understanding of the local market, but also the lack of autonomy and authority for that subsidiary.
However, by pointing out the above phenomenon, I do not claim that the CAS approach is better than the traditional and hierarchical approach for organizational change. CAS approach also has its risks, as it is not as legitimate and careful as the traditional and hierarchical approach. Both approaches cannot predict or guarantee outcome of the change; however it seems to me that since the CAS approach is less legitimate than the traditional and hierarchical approach, it is also riskier. Also, in an acquisitive or ventured setting, a subsidiary who adopts full CAS approach may lack monitoring from its master organization, which the master organization cannot ensure if the subsidiary is effectively contributing to the overall organizational objectives and goals.
So, which approach is better for leading change? In my opinion, none of these two approaches is more superior to the other; both of them would work, but organizations cannot take either approach far to the extreme, and many factors have to be taken into consideration when choosing the approach, such as organization culture and size. Perhaps somewhere between the two approaches seems to be a better fit. I paid special attention to the point John made during Jill’s presentation, which he pointed out that GE, as one of the most acquisitive and ventured organizations, has taken a mixed approach that once it makes an acquisition or joins forces with another company, it would give away certain amount of freedom and authority to that new subsidiary, letting it operate independently, but also monitoring to make sure it contributes to the overall organizational strategy. Such approach does not require too much command and control from the master organization that could result in over-centralization; while also provides enough monitoring which can help the organization to make sure its objectives and goals are met. For these benefits, I think this is a popular approach lots of organizations adopt today.
Reference:
Hierarchical Organization. (2007). LearnManagement2.com.
http://www.learnmanagement2.com/hierarchical%20structure.htm
Jill Woelfer’s presentation about the Jazz Metaphor was very interesting and enlightening as it stimulated me to think about one question: which approach is better for organizational change, the traditional, hierarchical approach or the complex adaptive system (CAS) approach?
From Jill’s presentation and Facilitating Organization Change we can tell that there are significant differences between the traditional and CAS approaches. Also, as I was doing research for the term paper, which was on eBay’s acquisition and partnership failure in China, I had the chance to become more knowledgeable about the differences between a hierarchical organization and a flat organization. In the 20th century, as organizations in various industries grew, hierarchical structure was popular in these organizations, as such structure provided the advantage of command and control for the organizations, and this trend had continued for decades and almost all major organizations had exercised the structure. However, with the advent of globalization and widespread of technology, hierarchical organizations had begun to downsize and reduce workforces. This has promoted a lot of smaller organizations, who would in turn exercise flat structure. Also, a lot of flat-structured organizations are products of traditional organizations’ acquisitions and partnerships; these companies’ values and employee perspectives can be so different from their master organizations.
By reading Jill’s paper and listening to her presentation, we can tell that a CAS type organization always requires agility and resilience; therefore it can efficiently make decisions to adopt changes. On the other side, such agility and resilience would seldom present in a traditional and hierarchical type organization, because rules and policies will always exist which require the organization to go through a strict and legitimate consensus gathering and decision-making process. Moreover, if that CAS organization is a subsidiary of a traditional and hierarchical organization, its ability to be agile and resilient may be impeded by its master organization, as the master organization’s desire to maintain command and control over the subsidiary would do such impediment. eBay’s failure in China is a typical example of how master organization can harm a subsidiary; the underlying reason for the failure was not only due to the lack of understanding of the local market, but also the lack of autonomy and authority for that subsidiary.
However, by pointing out the above phenomenon, I do not claim that the CAS approach is better than the traditional and hierarchical approach for organizational change. CAS approach also has its risks, as it is not as legitimate and careful as the traditional and hierarchical approach. Both approaches cannot predict or guarantee outcome of the change; however it seems to me that since the CAS approach is less legitimate than the traditional and hierarchical approach, it is also riskier. Also, in an acquisitive or ventured setting, a subsidiary who adopts full CAS approach may lack monitoring from its master organization, which the master organization cannot ensure if the subsidiary is effectively contributing to the overall organizational objectives and goals.
So, which approach is better for leading change? In my opinion, none of these two approaches is more superior to the other; both of them would work, but organizations cannot take either approach far to the extreme, and many factors have to be taken into consideration when choosing the approach, such as organization culture and size. Perhaps somewhere between the two approaches seems to be a better fit. I paid special attention to the point John made during Jill’s presentation, which he pointed out that GE, as one of the most acquisitive and ventured organizations, has taken a mixed approach that once it makes an acquisition or joins forces with another company, it would give away certain amount of freedom and authority to that new subsidiary, letting it operate independently, but also monitoring to make sure it contributes to the overall organizational strategy. Such approach does not require too much command and control from the master organization that could result in over-centralization; while also provides enough monitoring which can help the organization to make sure its objectives and goals are met. For these benefits, I think this is a popular approach lots of organizations adopt today.
Reference:
Hierarchical Organization. (2007). LearnManagement2.com.
http://www.learnmanagement2.com/hierarchical%20structure.htm
Reflection - Gints Salaks
This course was one of the most interesting and educational experiences I had this quarter. It showed me a great deal of how people and organizations can implement changes effectively and what kind of roles people play during those times. There were a couple of things which really attracted and motivated me during this class as well as things I think can be improved on in the future.
One of the things I truly enjoyed were videos which made us discuss the issues and come up with solutions. Those videos should be implemented more frequently because it engaged students to interact with each other and also to defend their point of view. It was very interesting.
However, I would recommend finding videos which also portray the bottom level employees and how they felt during the change. I definitely want to be among the C-level executives some day, but it will not happen tomorrow, so that’s why I am very interested how employees were able to coop with demanding CEOs. From the videos, I only can imagine or speculate how the rest of the team felt. For example, I would like to know how the team members feel when the leader announces that he is forced to fire one of the team members. I would like to see fired employee’s side of the story.
In addition, I believe that the class website needs some improvement. It seems that currently it lacks the ease of visibility and is difficult to navigate though. There is information overload! I would recommend organizing it either by student, or by topic. It is difficult to go over 78 postings for this month when all of them are just thrown in there. I do enjoy reading them, but it is easier for me to copy and paste them in the Word document. So for the next class, please decide on how you will manage these posting. I noticed that couples of my classmates have already given some feedback on that so I will not repeat it here.
I really want to congratulate Professor Kevin on successfully managing this class. It was very interactive and the content of the class was very educational and motivational. Great work, Kevin!
One of the things I truly enjoyed were videos which made us discuss the issues and come up with solutions. Those videos should be implemented more frequently because it engaged students to interact with each other and also to defend their point of view. It was very interesting.
However, I would recommend finding videos which also portray the bottom level employees and how they felt during the change. I definitely want to be among the C-level executives some day, but it will not happen tomorrow, so that’s why I am very interested how employees were able to coop with demanding CEOs. From the videos, I only can imagine or speculate how the rest of the team felt. For example, I would like to know how the team members feel when the leader announces that he is forced to fire one of the team members. I would like to see fired employee’s side of the story.
In addition, I believe that the class website needs some improvement. It seems that currently it lacks the ease of visibility and is difficult to navigate though. There is information overload! I would recommend organizing it either by student, or by topic. It is difficult to go over 78 postings for this month when all of them are just thrown in there. I do enjoy reading them, but it is easier for me to copy and paste them in the Word document. So for the next class, please decide on how you will manage these posting. I noticed that couples of my classmates have already given some feedback on that so I will not repeat it here.
I really want to congratulate Professor Kevin on successfully managing this class. It was very interactive and the content of the class was very educational and motivational. Great work, Kevin!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Reflection - Rebecca M Allen
I was happy to see we could use our last reflection for discussing our class experience. It brought me back to my undergraduate days at Evergreen, where instead of receiving grades or anonymously rating professors at the end of the quarter, the professor evaluated the student, and the student evaluated themselves, the professor, and the class. Needless to say, Evergreen transcripts are pages thick. I’ve heard there is an Evergreen alum in the MSIM class of 2009, and I hope that our presence shows the value of a holistic admissions process. Interdisciplinary curriculum and collaborative learning characterize Evergreen, and the class blog captured those qualities in a new way for me.
I really like how Shan described the format of the blog as “many to many” learning, as opposed to the traditional “one to many” style of one instructor to many students. With the class blog, we were given the opportunity to learn from each other through writing assignments, not just class discussions. That caters to different learning styles, and if one day I was half-asleep and stammered through a half-brained remark in class, I could spend extra time to think about it and form a reflection around it later on. I appreciated that opportunity. I found the most value in using the blog was reading everyone else’s posts. It was exciting and informative, and it contributed greatly to my learning experience.
The fact that our forum was public and not on a closed UW tool such as Catalyst added an interesting element. As John noted, some posts were anonymized or removed. The stakes are higher in a public forum, and I can now say I’m a Google hit. We had minimal control over how our posts would format when Kevin published them, which was discomforting at times. I never wanted to be in the position to ask Kevin to repost something just because I didn’t like how it turned out, so I just hoped every time that it wouldn’t end up upside down. But the benefits of the public blog were amazing! It forced me to work harder, and the author of the book featured in Sandy’s book review read her post and commented on it. That was really exciting, and it never would have happened if we had to turn the assignment in to just Kevin.
As other people have said, reading and responding to posts was challenging. I learned that Daylen wisely subscribed to the RSS feed, and Sandy mentioned using the search engine to find posts by name, two things that had never occurred to me. I recommend that the public blog be carried on as a tradition in future classes, but an exploration of different tools in a trial-and-error manner would be useful in finding the most effective option. I also second Shan’s suggestion that the class discuss any change management initiatives happening in our individual internships. What a great idea! The internship is a chance for us to apply what we have learned, but it would also be helpful to bring applicable internship issues back into the classroom where there are a large number of minds that can work together on the same problem. It’d be like the video cases, but instead of the issues coming from CEO’s, they’d come from us (but don’t stop showing the video cases!).
Finally, I enjoyed this class very much and am happy that it is one of the core classes in our curriculum. I have learned how pervasive change is in organizations and I feel like I’m ending the quarter with much more knowledge about how to act in those situations than I had three months ago. I appreciated the opportunity to read everyone’s insights on the blog and I’d like to thank Kevin and my classmates for an extraordinary quarter.
I really like how Shan described the format of the blog as “many to many” learning, as opposed to the traditional “one to many” style of one instructor to many students. With the class blog, we were given the opportunity to learn from each other through writing assignments, not just class discussions. That caters to different learning styles, and if one day I was half-asleep and stammered through a half-brained remark in class, I could spend extra time to think about it and form a reflection around it later on. I appreciated that opportunity. I found the most value in using the blog was reading everyone else’s posts. It was exciting and informative, and it contributed greatly to my learning experience.
The fact that our forum was public and not on a closed UW tool such as Catalyst added an interesting element. As John noted, some posts were anonymized or removed. The stakes are higher in a public forum, and I can now say I’m a Google hit. We had minimal control over how our posts would format when Kevin published them, which was discomforting at times. I never wanted to be in the position to ask Kevin to repost something just because I didn’t like how it turned out, so I just hoped every time that it wouldn’t end up upside down. But the benefits of the public blog were amazing! It forced me to work harder, and the author of the book featured in Sandy’s book review read her post and commented on it. That was really exciting, and it never would have happened if we had to turn the assignment in to just Kevin.
As other people have said, reading and responding to posts was challenging. I learned that Daylen wisely subscribed to the RSS feed, and Sandy mentioned using the search engine to find posts by name, two things that had never occurred to me. I recommend that the public blog be carried on as a tradition in future classes, but an exploration of different tools in a trial-and-error manner would be useful in finding the most effective option. I also second Shan’s suggestion that the class discuss any change management initiatives happening in our individual internships. What a great idea! The internship is a chance for us to apply what we have learned, but it would also be helpful to bring applicable internship issues back into the classroom where there are a large number of minds that can work together on the same problem. It’d be like the video cases, but instead of the issues coming from CEO’s, they’d come from us (but don’t stop showing the video cases!).
Finally, I enjoyed this class very much and am happy that it is one of the core classes in our curriculum. I have learned how pervasive change is in organizations and I feel like I’m ending the quarter with much more knowledge about how to act in those situations than I had three months ago. I appreciated the opportunity to read everyone’s insights on the blog and I’d like to thank Kevin and my classmates for an extraordinary quarter.
Reflection - John Tulinsky
Observations from my Internship
The disclosure requirements of my internship allow me to discuss my work but I am precluded from naming the company in any material that will be publicly posted. Most of my classmates know where I work but for the record it is a Fortune 100 company whose business is the manufacture of a complex and technically-advanced product. The company has manufacturing and research centers throughout the United States but the primary ones are in the Pacific Northwest, Southern California and St Louis, Missouri.My internship is within the company’s technical library. Until recently the library provided traditional services such as collection management, cataloging and searches of technical literature. However it is no longer necessary to maintain a physical collection of technical books and journals and many of the other library services, such as searching, can now be performed by users using a growing assortment of tools. As a result the number of library staff has been steadily reduced over the past few years and library management is seeking to reposition the library as an information management resource that is focused on user needs and fully utilizes modern collaborative tools.
My role was to support the implementation of DSpace, an open-source institutional repository. The goal of the project was to provide structure to a large body of grey content, which is content that is not part of a formal document management system. For example, many scientists and engineers in the organization had participated in a program where they obtained an advanced degree while remaining employees of the company. The theses, dissertations, and publications generated by individuals who participated in this program clearly have great value but currently reside on a medley of personal computers, shared drives and sharepoint sites. This is one example among many of valuable information that simply is not available to the organization with current knowledge management practices.
Unfortunately, my project has moved very slowly as a result of resistance from a number of directions. The first problem is a result of the library attempting to build a specialized and customizable system. The IT department is highly territorial and does not like the fact that someone is attempting to adopt a new piece of software. IT favors large-scale enterprise-wide tools. Due to the enormous scale of the organization this is understandable. An additional information management challenge is that due to numerous government and military contracts as well as export restrictions on technology control of access to information is a critical business concern. The second major problem comes from the library’s attempt to redefine its role. There are numerous on-going knowledge management initiatives within the company; in fact, knowledge management is an important department and it is also resistant to the library taking on a project in an area it perceives to be its own.
Participating in the roll-out of a system like DSpace would be a nice bullet point for my resume but for me the most important part of the internship is the experience. As a short-term member of the organization I don’t have a major stake in the ultimate outcome of this project but the experience has been educational in unexpected ways. Given the size of the organization and the nature of its business I understand the need for maintaining order. However, much of the resistance appears to be resistance for its own sake rather than the result of different groups, with different goals and responsibilities working together to solve a problem. For example, although the Knowledge Management department is blocking this project they have no comparable project or plan to capture the content targeted by DSpace. At times it appears to me that there is no concern whatsoever for overall corporate goals, it’s simply a bunch of individual groups fighting against each other. In a past job for the pharmaceutical company Pharmacia I also observed this sort of intra-company conflict, although without the benefit of experience and the perspective provided by the MSIM program. Sometimes I’m puzzled how any large company is profitable. In the end I believe that one of the most valuable lessons from my internship was in teaching me that I don’t being the employee of a giant corporation.
The disclosure requirements of my internship allow me to discuss my work but I am precluded from naming the company in any material that will be publicly posted. Most of my classmates know where I work but for the record it is a Fortune 100 company whose business is the manufacture of a complex and technically-advanced product. The company has manufacturing and research centers throughout the United States but the primary ones are in the Pacific Northwest, Southern California and St Louis, Missouri.My internship is within the company’s technical library. Until recently the library provided traditional services such as collection management, cataloging and searches of technical literature. However it is no longer necessary to maintain a physical collection of technical books and journals and many of the other library services, such as searching, can now be performed by users using a growing assortment of tools. As a result the number of library staff has been steadily reduced over the past few years and library management is seeking to reposition the library as an information management resource that is focused on user needs and fully utilizes modern collaborative tools.
My role was to support the implementation of DSpace, an open-source institutional repository. The goal of the project was to provide structure to a large body of grey content, which is content that is not part of a formal document management system. For example, many scientists and engineers in the organization had participated in a program where they obtained an advanced degree while remaining employees of the company. The theses, dissertations, and publications generated by individuals who participated in this program clearly have great value but currently reside on a medley of personal computers, shared drives and sharepoint sites. This is one example among many of valuable information that simply is not available to the organization with current knowledge management practices.
Unfortunately, my project has moved very slowly as a result of resistance from a number of directions. The first problem is a result of the library attempting to build a specialized and customizable system. The IT department is highly territorial and does not like the fact that someone is attempting to adopt a new piece of software. IT favors large-scale enterprise-wide tools. Due to the enormous scale of the organization this is understandable. An additional information management challenge is that due to numerous government and military contracts as well as export restrictions on technology control of access to information is a critical business concern. The second major problem comes from the library’s attempt to redefine its role. There are numerous on-going knowledge management initiatives within the company; in fact, knowledge management is an important department and it is also resistant to the library taking on a project in an area it perceives to be its own.
Participating in the roll-out of a system like DSpace would be a nice bullet point for my resume but for me the most important part of the internship is the experience. As a short-term member of the organization I don’t have a major stake in the ultimate outcome of this project but the experience has been educational in unexpected ways. Given the size of the organization and the nature of its business I understand the need for maintaining order. However, much of the resistance appears to be resistance for its own sake rather than the result of different groups, with different goals and responsibilities working together to solve a problem. For example, although the Knowledge Management department is blocking this project they have no comparable project or plan to capture the content targeted by DSpace. At times it appears to me that there is no concern whatsoever for overall corporate goals, it’s simply a bunch of individual groups fighting against each other. In a past job for the pharmaceutical company Pharmacia I also observed this sort of intra-company conflict, although without the benefit of experience and the perspective provided by the MSIM program. Sometimes I’m puzzled how any large company is profitable. In the end I believe that one of the most valuable lessons from my internship was in teaching me that I don’t being the employee of a giant corporation.
Reflection - Eichbaum, William M
Innovation Training
Can you train people to be more innovative? This question is posed by Jeffery Phillips in his blog entry Can you train someone to be innovative? His background is in management consulting with a focus on advising organizations on how to become learning organizations. Lately, he has been getting a lot of interest from clients on how to train for innovation. Most of these organizations are very up to speed on the most current management methodologies and have well established training components. Even with their existing training infrastructure and welcoming cultures, Jeffery points out that it is impossible to just sit someone down and train them to be more innovative. He goes on to point out that there are many elements that lead to innovation and that it is a function of the organization as a whole much more than of the individual.
So, the question is, how do we develop organizations as a whole to facilitate innovation? I believe that this question can be dissected into two discrete components. First, how can organizations work to allow innovation? Second, how can organizations work to encourage innovation?
To allow innovation seems simple but it is not. A simplistic view of innovation would assert that to allow innovation, one must simply hire innovative people and allow them to work freely. This is true. After all, you need innovative people to have innovation and you need to allow them the freedom to innovate. The only problem with this view is that it is not the whole truth. It ignores the most important aspect of innovation as it relates to the organization as a whole: how to accept and leverage the innovations when they arise? A great example of an organization that seems to leverage innovation poorly is Microsoft. Microsoft Research is stocked full of the smartest, most innovative people in their fields and is managed very loosely, with focus on the freedom to pursue anything, but their products rarely seem to reap these benefits. Why is this? I believe that this is because Microsoft is ineffective at bringing these innovations from conception to production. By isolating MSR and creating a bureaucratic insulator to protect the freedom of its researchers, Microsoft is sacrificing the benefit of these innovations to their product lines.
A counter example, though not a perfect one, is Google. Google’s unique style of management for their engineers is effective at both providing freedom and capitalizing on its awards. The structure of their organization reflects this function; at the core of their organization are the engineers and they are both the innovators and the producers. There is much less separation of the research and the production.
To encourage innovation, I believe that organizations could take a multitude of approaches and diversity in this regard is beneficial. I have one such recommendation for how to encourage innovation to share that a friend recently identified. My friend was discussing the ugly sides of intellectual property and, in particular, when it can be detrimental to innovation. His example was that an employee of a giant organization that leaves and pursues an innovation of his or her own. The way that intellectual property laws and contracts can be set up could make this process very complicated. In many cases, the organization will pursue legal action and use its greater resources to bully the innovator into submission. Depending on the situation, this could actually be very detrimental. Instead, my friend recommended that an organization could allow innovators to leave and develop and test their innovations independently. Then, if the innovations proved to be worthy, the organization could simply attempt to acquire them back. This may seem counter intuitive, but by allowing the innovators to develop their ideas independently, they are afforded complete freedom and placed in the most typical environment for innovation: the start-up. The only problem is that there is possibility for those innovations to be acquired by other organizations than the original. But, compared to the alternative where all attempts to leave and innovate are squashed, at least in this way the organization is somehow tied to the inevitable innovation.
Can you train people to be more innovative? This question is posed by Jeffery Phillips in his blog entry Can you train someone to be innovative? His background is in management consulting with a focus on advising organizations on how to become learning organizations. Lately, he has been getting a lot of interest from clients on how to train for innovation. Most of these organizations are very up to speed on the most current management methodologies and have well established training components. Even with their existing training infrastructure and welcoming cultures, Jeffery points out that it is impossible to just sit someone down and train them to be more innovative. He goes on to point out that there are many elements that lead to innovation and that it is a function of the organization as a whole much more than of the individual.
So, the question is, how do we develop organizations as a whole to facilitate innovation? I believe that this question can be dissected into two discrete components. First, how can organizations work to allow innovation? Second, how can organizations work to encourage innovation?
To allow innovation seems simple but it is not. A simplistic view of innovation would assert that to allow innovation, one must simply hire innovative people and allow them to work freely. This is true. After all, you need innovative people to have innovation and you need to allow them the freedom to innovate. The only problem with this view is that it is not the whole truth. It ignores the most important aspect of innovation as it relates to the organization as a whole: how to accept and leverage the innovations when they arise? A great example of an organization that seems to leverage innovation poorly is Microsoft. Microsoft Research is stocked full of the smartest, most innovative people in their fields and is managed very loosely, with focus on the freedom to pursue anything, but their products rarely seem to reap these benefits. Why is this? I believe that this is because Microsoft is ineffective at bringing these innovations from conception to production. By isolating MSR and creating a bureaucratic insulator to protect the freedom of its researchers, Microsoft is sacrificing the benefit of these innovations to their product lines.
A counter example, though not a perfect one, is Google. Google’s unique style of management for their engineers is effective at both providing freedom and capitalizing on its awards. The structure of their organization reflects this function; at the core of their organization are the engineers and they are both the innovators and the producers. There is much less separation of the research and the production.
To encourage innovation, I believe that organizations could take a multitude of approaches and diversity in this regard is beneficial. I have one such recommendation for how to encourage innovation to share that a friend recently identified. My friend was discussing the ugly sides of intellectual property and, in particular, when it can be detrimental to innovation. His example was that an employee of a giant organization that leaves and pursues an innovation of his or her own. The way that intellectual property laws and contracts can be set up could make this process very complicated. In many cases, the organization will pursue legal action and use its greater resources to bully the innovator into submission. Depending on the situation, this could actually be very detrimental. Instead, my friend recommended that an organization could allow innovators to leave and develop and test their innovations independently. Then, if the innovations proved to be worthy, the organization could simply attempt to acquire them back. This may seem counter intuitive, but by allowing the innovators to develop their ideas independently, they are afforded complete freedom and placed in the most typical environment for innovation: the start-up. The only problem is that there is possibility for those innovations to be acquired by other organizations than the original. But, compared to the alternative where all attempts to leave and innovate are squashed, at least in this way the organization is somehow tied to the inevitable innovation.
Reflection - Jun Shao
Inspiration and Hard Work
Lokesh’s father shared his personal experience and knowledge with us in today’s class. Those stories were instructive. He emphasized that hard work was essential to success. As Thomas Edison said, genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.[1] Rather than emphasize one over the other, I would like to say that both of them are the factors important to success.
Hard Work Realizes Inspiration
There is always an illusion that if a person had great inspirations he or she would not have to work. However, it is work that makes people exceptional, not inspirations. Professor Michael Howe and colleagues at Exeter University examined outstanding performances in area and could not find anyone who reached the highest levels of achievement without thousands of hours of work and practices, whether in music, mathematics, chess, or sports.[2] Mozart practiced over 12 hours a day for over a decade in order to produce his first acknowledged masterpiece and he never had a happy childhood.
Inspiration might provide an early advantage, but many people lose their edge by not putting enough effort. There were so many people who used to work on Minix. Some of them were stroke by the idea of developing a new operation system. However, only Linus kept working on it for years and finally released Linux. The concept of social network on the internet arose in 1997. Six years later a programmer Mark Zuckerberg presented us Facebook which brought triumph after years of his hard work.
We overvalue inspiration and undervalue hard work because we don’t see what goes on behind the scenes. We see Gravity Theory not years that Isaac Newton spent in his lab.
In all, hard work is the assurance of realizing inspiration. Without hard work, inspiration makes little sense. What’s more, people can not wait for inspiration. Most of their inspirations come during their work. As Marion Boddy-Evans said in her blog, if you always wait until you feel inspired before you paint, you're wasting a lot of time.[3] You have to keep painting to get inspirations.
Inspiration Drives Hard Work
First, inspiration motivates people to work. It provides a promising vision and an encouraging goal of your work. We are inspired to work for great ideas, such as eBay. Inspiration creates belief of success in your daily work.
Without inspiration, people end up with hard work with pain. In that case they just work for work. They just meet customer requirements. Lokesh’s father told us that we should work 110 percents for customers. We should work beyond customer expectation. If we simply want to get job done, we just meet customer requirements. We have to find something else which will make us work hard. One of the answers is inspiration.
As a developer, I believe that coding is an art and just like any other kind of art, like painting, it requires inspiration. Why is it that a painter’s need for inspiration is not debated, but a developer's need for inspiration is? Their task is the same. They are trying to turn nothing into something. So does other jobs. The inspiration out performs just hard work every time. Therefore people will enjoy their work and think of more ways to improve and enhance the job.
Conclusion
Inspiration and hard work rely on each other. We can not simply separate one from the other to achieve success. To some extent, inspiration shows the road to success and we work hard to accomplish the journey. Both of them are very essential to success.
[1] brainyquote.com . (2007). Thomas A. Edison Quotes. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2007, from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed109928.html
[2] Freeman, J., Span , P., & Wagner , H. (2007). Actualizing Talent. Cassell plc, Stanley House
[3] Boddy-Evans, M. (2007). Monday Motivator: Don't Wait for Inspiration. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2007, from http://painting.about.com/b/2007/11/05/monday-motivator-dont-wait-for-inspiration.htm
Lokesh’s father shared his personal experience and knowledge with us in today’s class. Those stories were instructive. He emphasized that hard work was essential to success. As Thomas Edison said, genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.[1] Rather than emphasize one over the other, I would like to say that both of them are the factors important to success.
Hard Work Realizes Inspiration
There is always an illusion that if a person had great inspirations he or she would not have to work. However, it is work that makes people exceptional, not inspirations. Professor Michael Howe and colleagues at Exeter University examined outstanding performances in area and could not find anyone who reached the highest levels of achievement without thousands of hours of work and practices, whether in music, mathematics, chess, or sports.[2] Mozart practiced over 12 hours a day for over a decade in order to produce his first acknowledged masterpiece and he never had a happy childhood.
Inspiration might provide an early advantage, but many people lose their edge by not putting enough effort. There were so many people who used to work on Minix. Some of them were stroke by the idea of developing a new operation system. However, only Linus kept working on it for years and finally released Linux. The concept of social network on the internet arose in 1997. Six years later a programmer Mark Zuckerberg presented us Facebook which brought triumph after years of his hard work.
We overvalue inspiration and undervalue hard work because we don’t see what goes on behind the scenes. We see Gravity Theory not years that Isaac Newton spent in his lab.
In all, hard work is the assurance of realizing inspiration. Without hard work, inspiration makes little sense. What’s more, people can not wait for inspiration. Most of their inspirations come during their work. As Marion Boddy-Evans said in her blog, if you always wait until you feel inspired before you paint, you're wasting a lot of time.[3] You have to keep painting to get inspirations.
Inspiration Drives Hard Work
First, inspiration motivates people to work. It provides a promising vision and an encouraging goal of your work. We are inspired to work for great ideas, such as eBay. Inspiration creates belief of success in your daily work.
Without inspiration, people end up with hard work with pain. In that case they just work for work. They just meet customer requirements. Lokesh’s father told us that we should work 110 percents for customers. We should work beyond customer expectation. If we simply want to get job done, we just meet customer requirements. We have to find something else which will make us work hard. One of the answers is inspiration.
As a developer, I believe that coding is an art and just like any other kind of art, like painting, it requires inspiration. Why is it that a painter’s need for inspiration is not debated, but a developer's need for inspiration is? Their task is the same. They are trying to turn nothing into something. So does other jobs. The inspiration out performs just hard work every time. Therefore people will enjoy their work and think of more ways to improve and enhance the job.
Conclusion
Inspiration and hard work rely on each other. We can not simply separate one from the other to achieve success. To some extent, inspiration shows the road to success and we work hard to accomplish the journey. Both of them are very essential to success.
[1] brainyquote.com . (2007). Thomas A. Edison Quotes. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2007, from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasaed109928.html
[2] Freeman, J., Span , P., & Wagner , H. (2007). Actualizing Talent. Cassell plc, Stanley House
[3] Boddy-Evans, M. (2007). Monday Motivator: Don't Wait for Inspiration. Retrieved Nov. 28, 2007, from http://painting.about.com/b/2007/11/05/monday-motivator-dont-wait-for-inspiration.htm
Reflection - W. Max Eichbaum
Meeting with the Bobs or Reflecting on the Responsible Incorporation of Outside Change Agents
“Bill Lumbergh: So, Peter, what's happening? Aahh, now, are you going to go ahead and have those TPS reports for us this afternoon?
Peter Gibbons: No. Bill Lumbergh: Ah. Yeah. So I guess we should probably go ahead and have a little talk. Hmm?
Peter Gibbons: Not right now, Lumbergh, I'm kinda busy. In fact, look, I'm gonna have to ask you to just go ahead and come back another time. I got a meeting with the Bobs in a couple of minutes.
Bill Lumbergh: I wasn't aware of a meeting with them.
Peter Gibbons: Yeah, they called me at home.” - imdb.com
Through the mechanism of satire, the 1999 movie Office Space was able to highlight errors in – and poke fun at – various aspects of typical United States' corporate culture and best practices. What is amazing is that these negative aspects were so prevalent in the organizational environment that the film makers were able to produce a fairly successful movie centered on them. While most of the movie's humor is based on hyperbole, it is also rooted on relevant observations. In particular to the concept of change management, the movie's plot operates amidst – and derives many of its character growth mechanisms from – an organizational change effort. This reflection will focus on an element of that change management effort that I feel is critical but often overlooked in the literature: the issue of how and when to use outside help (Bobs) throughout a change management effort.
I believe that there are two methods by which involving Bobs can really help an organization succeed in its change efforts. The first method is to involve them during an organization’s discovery phase. During this phase the organization is trying to describe its current state and examine why it should change. This is necessarily a highly reflective experience and critical to the change effort as a whole; it is the foundation on which the effort will be constructed. Depending on the organization, it may be susceptible to errors during this phase. Disgruntled employees whom may have preexisting aversions to change efforts as a whole may knowingly disrupt the process with little recourse. Happy employees with tendencies to focus on the positive may ignore existing negative aspects of the organization’s current state. Long time employees could miss obvious reasons for change because they lack alternative perspectives to evaluate from. All these situations have the same outcome: they cause the change effort to begin construction on a faulty foundation. Of course, involving Bobs could go a long way to preventing these common pitfalls during the discovery phase. The Bobs could police the disgruntled employees, solicit a balanced view from the positive employees, and provide the long time employees with a richer perspective. In every case, Bobs could be used to provide the change effort with more insightful and accurate information from the discovery phase.
The second method for making effective use of Bobs is for the facilitation of meetings throughout the rest of the change effort. Change efforts can bring out many tough issues and highlight diverging visions. This is not a bad thing though. In fact, it is in many ways the very purpose and fuel for the change effort. The problem is that change efforts also have to be efficient and timely because they are often engineered to make use of some existing or potential environmental situation. Bobs and be involved throughout the change effort to maintain a productive dialog. By facilitating meetings of the team leading the change, Bobs can bring out the important issues and make positive gains from them in a timely manner.
On the other hand, Bobs can also be very detrimental. If implemented without discretion, they can fracture an organization or provide the sense that the change effort is a rogue entity, independent of the organization itself. This could lead to a significant drop in organization-wide buy-in, crippling the change effort. Still, for what they are good for, Bobs can help an organization through the though discovery and facilitating processes in its change effort.
“Bill Lumbergh: So, Peter, what's happening? Aahh, now, are you going to go ahead and have those TPS reports for us this afternoon?
Peter Gibbons: No. Bill Lumbergh: Ah. Yeah. So I guess we should probably go ahead and have a little talk. Hmm?
Peter Gibbons: Not right now, Lumbergh, I'm kinda busy. In fact, look, I'm gonna have to ask you to just go ahead and come back another time. I got a meeting with the Bobs in a couple of minutes.
Bill Lumbergh: I wasn't aware of a meeting with them.
Peter Gibbons: Yeah, they called me at home.” - imdb.com
Through the mechanism of satire, the 1999 movie Office Space was able to highlight errors in – and poke fun at – various aspects of typical United States' corporate culture and best practices. What is amazing is that these negative aspects were so prevalent in the organizational environment that the film makers were able to produce a fairly successful movie centered on them. While most of the movie's humor is based on hyperbole, it is also rooted on relevant observations. In particular to the concept of change management, the movie's plot operates amidst – and derives many of its character growth mechanisms from – an organizational change effort. This reflection will focus on an element of that change management effort that I feel is critical but often overlooked in the literature: the issue of how and when to use outside help (Bobs) throughout a change management effort.
I believe that there are two methods by which involving Bobs can really help an organization succeed in its change efforts. The first method is to involve them during an organization’s discovery phase. During this phase the organization is trying to describe its current state and examine why it should change. This is necessarily a highly reflective experience and critical to the change effort as a whole; it is the foundation on which the effort will be constructed. Depending on the organization, it may be susceptible to errors during this phase. Disgruntled employees whom may have preexisting aversions to change efforts as a whole may knowingly disrupt the process with little recourse. Happy employees with tendencies to focus on the positive may ignore existing negative aspects of the organization’s current state. Long time employees could miss obvious reasons for change because they lack alternative perspectives to evaluate from. All these situations have the same outcome: they cause the change effort to begin construction on a faulty foundation. Of course, involving Bobs could go a long way to preventing these common pitfalls during the discovery phase. The Bobs could police the disgruntled employees, solicit a balanced view from the positive employees, and provide the long time employees with a richer perspective. In every case, Bobs could be used to provide the change effort with more insightful and accurate information from the discovery phase.
The second method for making effective use of Bobs is for the facilitation of meetings throughout the rest of the change effort. Change efforts can bring out many tough issues and highlight diverging visions. This is not a bad thing though. In fact, it is in many ways the very purpose and fuel for the change effort. The problem is that change efforts also have to be efficient and timely because they are often engineered to make use of some existing or potential environmental situation. Bobs and be involved throughout the change effort to maintain a productive dialog. By facilitating meetings of the team leading the change, Bobs can bring out the important issues and make positive gains from them in a timely manner.
On the other hand, Bobs can also be very detrimental. If implemented without discretion, they can fracture an organization or provide the sense that the change effort is a rogue entity, independent of the organization itself. This could lead to a significant drop in organization-wide buy-in, crippling the change effort. Still, for what they are good for, Bobs can help an organization through the though discovery and facilitating processes in its change effort.
Reflection - Usha Jose
I absolutely enjoyed Kevin’s Change management class this quarter and I am really happy to have learned a lot more about the essentials of change initiatives in organizations. The course gave an excellent overview of change management issues and acquainted me with the challenges that one might face when implementing a change initiative. The course has better equipped me for encountering a change initiative - as a change agent or as someone who has to adapt to a change scenario.
The class was structured very well and all the assignments contributed immensely to the learning experience. The reaction statements inspired me to become a regular reader of business magazines like Fortune, Business week etc. It was very interesting to see topics discussed in class discussed in different media as well. The flexibility around submitting reactions was a very good option as it did not pressurize me and gave me the freedom to choose any topic that interested me and the time frame that suited me. I am glad that Kevin preferred five ‘any time reflections’ to weekly reflections. Because of the freedom associated with it, I really enjoyed writing the papers.
The books for reading were also not unnecessarily complicated. They were easy to read books illustrated well with good examples and case studies. The books also gave wonderful insights and did not detract us from reading as they were not heavy readings.
The video cases and the discussions that followed it were the best part of the class. It really made the classes interesting. In the discussion part Kevin encouraged us to speak and moreover to think on feet. The role play and group discussion helped us to think from different perspectives. The term paper made us research extensively and we enjoyed every moment of it as it added to our knowledge. Being aware of the happenings in the industry is very crucial in our work life. The book review was a good part of the course assignment as well. The best thing was that we were not asked to choose books over 500 pages or so. We were free to choose any book and as far as the ideas from the book were well assimilated into the review we were good.
On the whole I liked the class very well, and I think it is one of the classes that have interested me significantly in the MSIM curriculum. Kevin’s knowledge, experience and friendly attitude has definitely contributed to the success of the class
The class was structured very well and all the assignments contributed immensely to the learning experience. The reaction statements inspired me to become a regular reader of business magazines like Fortune, Business week etc. It was very interesting to see topics discussed in class discussed in different media as well. The flexibility around submitting reactions was a very good option as it did not pressurize me and gave me the freedom to choose any topic that interested me and the time frame that suited me. I am glad that Kevin preferred five ‘any time reflections’ to weekly reflections. Because of the freedom associated with it, I really enjoyed writing the papers.
The books for reading were also not unnecessarily complicated. They were easy to read books illustrated well with good examples and case studies. The books also gave wonderful insights and did not detract us from reading as they were not heavy readings.
The video cases and the discussions that followed it were the best part of the class. It really made the classes interesting. In the discussion part Kevin encouraged us to speak and moreover to think on feet. The role play and group discussion helped us to think from different perspectives. The term paper made us research extensively and we enjoyed every moment of it as it added to our knowledge. Being aware of the happenings in the industry is very crucial in our work life. The book review was a good part of the course assignment as well. The best thing was that we were not asked to choose books over 500 pages or so. We were free to choose any book and as far as the ideas from the book were well assimilated into the review we were good.
On the whole I liked the class very well, and I think it is one of the classes that have interested me significantly in the MSIM curriculum. Kevin’s knowledge, experience and friendly attitude has definitely contributed to the success of the class
Reflection - Shan Zhao
Reflection ----- Crucial conversations
I’ve been reading, or I should say, listening to a book named “Crucial conversations---Tools for talking when stakes are high”[1][2]. The authors believed what separates best organizations from the good ones is their ability in handling conflict issues by conducting effective conversations among employees. They stated that “The essential lever within any organization is the ability to handle crucial conversations well”. This book made me think the role of communication, or more specifically, conversation in change management. In classes, we’ve discussed lot about change strategies and decision making in difficult situations. It seems to me that they are the frame, the skeleton of the body; while the conversations happening in a change process is the blood, the vehicle to carry the idea to its target. They are soft and subtle, but the change initiatives can only be delivered to individuals through interactions and conversations. A change process probably consists of numerous such conversations. The healthy conversations can effectively spread the idea and facilitate changes, while a good-will change initiative would be hampered with inappropriate conversation.
It’s natural that we see things from our own point of view. Not surprisingly, it is reflected in the way we talk with others. When we’re on one side of the conflict, we get defensive or aggressive, and which makes reaching mutual agreement even harder. Contrary to it, a good leader in my mind should be able to look at a conflict from the other side and talk in different ways. S/he should first understand why people are resisting the changes by listening, and explain the same information in different ways depending on the target. The content and style of conversation should be tailored to the target’s acceptability, role and personality, in stead of the leader’s preference.
Getting buy-in from individual or small group through artful conversations could be costly, but when the target group is small or tough, face to face conversation, if handled artfully, is one of the most effective treatments, because it’s specifically targeted.
Thoughts about the class
Like my classmates, I enjoyed watching and discussing the video cases in classes. The CEOs and company problems used to feel so far away suddenly were so close. For the first time, I got to really think what to do if I were facing those problems. The discussion part is even more interesting. I’m always amazed at the variety of ideas of my cohorts. I learned looking at things differently by listening to them.
I also like the idea of using blog as a class discussion medium. It breaks the traditional one (instructor) to many (students), and fosters a many to many communication. My works are no longer the “secret” between the instructor and myself. Anybody can read and comment on them. I can also learn different perspectives from my classmates’ posts.
I also have a couple of suggestions on this class. First, I would like to suggest the discussions more focused on the IT related changes. IT related changes probably share many similar characters with other business changes, but I would assume it has its uniqueness that deserves more attention. As we probably will deal with IT related changes on the jobs, the class would be even more helpful and practical to have special discussions on IT related change issues.
I really liked the many to many learning relationship, and I’d like to stretch it further. Since most of us have internship experiences by or at the time of taking this class, we could bring everybody’s real work problems into the class and discuss them. By doing that, the individual student would have a “think tank”, at least for the problem s/he struggles with. In addition, since most of us would face similar problems at work, discussing these problems will provoke idea exchange and thinking.
[1] Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., Switzler, A. Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking when Stakes are High, McGraw-Hill, 2002
[2] There is a “style under stress test” on the book’s website to test whether you tend to go silence or violence in heated discussions
I’ve been reading, or I should say, listening to a book named “Crucial conversations---Tools for talking when stakes are high”[1][2]. The authors believed what separates best organizations from the good ones is their ability in handling conflict issues by conducting effective conversations among employees. They stated that “The essential lever within any organization is the ability to handle crucial conversations well”. This book made me think the role of communication, or more specifically, conversation in change management. In classes, we’ve discussed lot about change strategies and decision making in difficult situations. It seems to me that they are the frame, the skeleton of the body; while the conversations happening in a change process is the blood, the vehicle to carry the idea to its target. They are soft and subtle, but the change initiatives can only be delivered to individuals through interactions and conversations. A change process probably consists of numerous such conversations. The healthy conversations can effectively spread the idea and facilitate changes, while a good-will change initiative would be hampered with inappropriate conversation.
It’s natural that we see things from our own point of view. Not surprisingly, it is reflected in the way we talk with others. When we’re on one side of the conflict, we get defensive or aggressive, and which makes reaching mutual agreement even harder. Contrary to it, a good leader in my mind should be able to look at a conflict from the other side and talk in different ways. S/he should first understand why people are resisting the changes by listening, and explain the same information in different ways depending on the target. The content and style of conversation should be tailored to the target’s acceptability, role and personality, in stead of the leader’s preference.
Getting buy-in from individual or small group through artful conversations could be costly, but when the target group is small or tough, face to face conversation, if handled artfully, is one of the most effective treatments, because it’s specifically targeted.
Thoughts about the class
Like my classmates, I enjoyed watching and discussing the video cases in classes. The CEOs and company problems used to feel so far away suddenly were so close. For the first time, I got to really think what to do if I were facing those problems. The discussion part is even more interesting. I’m always amazed at the variety of ideas of my cohorts. I learned looking at things differently by listening to them.
I also like the idea of using blog as a class discussion medium. It breaks the traditional one (instructor) to many (students), and fosters a many to many communication. My works are no longer the “secret” between the instructor and myself. Anybody can read and comment on them. I can also learn different perspectives from my classmates’ posts.
I also have a couple of suggestions on this class. First, I would like to suggest the discussions more focused on the IT related changes. IT related changes probably share many similar characters with other business changes, but I would assume it has its uniqueness that deserves more attention. As we probably will deal with IT related changes on the jobs, the class would be even more helpful and practical to have special discussions on IT related change issues.
I really liked the many to many learning relationship, and I’d like to stretch it further. Since most of us have internship experiences by or at the time of taking this class, we could bring everybody’s real work problems into the class and discuss them. By doing that, the individual student would have a “think tank”, at least for the problem s/he struggles with. In addition, since most of us would face similar problems at work, discussing these problems will provoke idea exchange and thinking.
[1] Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., Switzler, A. Crucial Conversations Tools for Talking when Stakes are High, McGraw-Hill, 2002
[2] There is a “style under stress test” on the book’s website to test whether you tend to go silence or violence in heated discussions
Reflection - Sinsath Shameer
I very much enjoyed the talk by Mr. Ramani today and I whole heartedly thank him for taking the time to be here with us and share his experiences. He was really a source of inspiration which I too badly needed like you Rachel ‘especially at the end of quarter’. I liked the references he gave about the great leaders from India as it also brought back nice memories from the history and literature classes in my school days. He talked about Dr. Radhakrishnan - one of our great Presidents and a great teacher, on the honor of whom we celebrate the “teachers’ day” in India. It is celebrated on the 5th of September and is dedicated to pay tribute to teachers all over the country. I had mentioned this to one of my classmates that I was really taken aback during my first quarter at the MSIM program when my classmates would address our senior professors by their first names. The whole of first quarter I refrained from addressing my professors by their first names and then gradually I got used to the norm out here. This again goes back to the discussion on culture we had in class a few weeks back and I believe that majority of Indians would have faced similar dilemmas when they first started out here.
Since I’m talking about teachers, let me also take this occasion to thank Kevin for a great quarter. This class has provided us with lot of wonderful resources and techniques on change management. I enjoyed the class discussions and like most of my friends I found the video case studies to be very informative and engaging. It was a good experience to analyze on the real life cases and have a good discussion on it. I recommend watching the movie ‘Pirates of Silicon Valley’ based on the book Fire in the Valley: The Making of The Personal Computer by Paul Freiberger and Michael Swaine, which is about the lives of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. This was a refreshing diversion while I was researching on Apple for our term paper. It has some technical inaccuracies but overall depicts a good picture of these two personalities.
Initially I was skeptical about the book review assignment and the value of doing this exercise. But I was surprised that I really loved reading the book and was fun to analyze the points and the theories mentioned in the book. It gave me a chance to explore beyond the required readings which opened me to new ideas on change management and to relate this to the ideas mentioned in the course text books. I also liked reading the articles and reactions by my classmates posted on the blog. The blog had some flaws as also mentioned by some of my other classmates that it was difficult to track comments and to retrieve new comments. I had to keep going back to the articles to check if anyone posted comments on any articles I posted and this was frustrating. Hence, the blog failed to foster discussions but it was definitely a great knowledge sharing tool.
Since I’m talking about teachers, let me also take this occasion to thank Kevin for a great quarter. This class has provided us with lot of wonderful resources and techniques on change management. I enjoyed the class discussions and like most of my friends I found the video case studies to be very informative and engaging. It was a good experience to analyze on the real life cases and have a good discussion on it. I recommend watching the movie ‘Pirates of Silicon Valley’ based on the book Fire in the Valley: The Making of The Personal Computer by Paul Freiberger and Michael Swaine, which is about the lives of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. This was a refreshing diversion while I was researching on Apple for our term paper. It has some technical inaccuracies but overall depicts a good picture of these two personalities.
Initially I was skeptical about the book review assignment and the value of doing this exercise. But I was surprised that I really loved reading the book and was fun to analyze the points and the theories mentioned in the book. It gave me a chance to explore beyond the required readings which opened me to new ideas on change management and to relate this to the ideas mentioned in the course text books. I also liked reading the articles and reactions by my classmates posted on the blog. The blog had some flaws as also mentioned by some of my other classmates that it was difficult to track comments and to retrieve new comments. I had to keep going back to the articles to check if anyone posted comments on any articles I posted and this was frustrating. Hence, the blog failed to foster discussions but it was definitely a great knowledge sharing tool.
Reflection - Lokesh Ramani
IMT 581 –Reflection 5
Author: Lokesh Ramani (lokeshr@u.washington.edu)
Exit Strategy: Is it wise to formulate your end game too soon?
With the advent of emerging online technologies, web 2.0 standards, the market has witnessed a surge in the number of new ventures and businesses, offering services to a wide range of customers. As an entrepreneurial unit, I understand that it is pertinent to devise an exit strategy plan for venture capitalists and investors to gauge the big picture of such a potential investment. Due to such a dependency, I wonder if entrepreneurs underestimate the potential of their ventures and settle for a less effective and profitable exit strategy option. I thought it may be pertinent to combine some concepts from the previous class “Management of Information Organizations” taught by Prof. DeSouza and discuss about exit strategy in entrepreneurial ventures and their implications.
In a dynamic environment with fluctuating market trends and influx of cutting edge new technologies and ideas, it is my opinion that to define an exit strategy at the very start of an entrepreneurial venture may not be an effective and efficient decision.
We are in the era of Agility- agility in thinking, agility in actions, agility in adaptation and agility in decision-making. Planning for an exit strategy at the start of a business venture contradicts the concept of agile management organizations, where “Emergence” replaces the concept of planning. Specifically, in rapidly changing business environments, scoping out an early exit strategy may lead to two consequences
Closing a successful business venture too early without perceiving potential high monetary rewards due to dynamic market trends
Prolonging a successful business venture to a potential failure without perceiving damaging market trends due to a rigidly defined exit strategy
I strongly believe that the goals set for an organization should be short-term and highly adaptable in reaction to internal and external forces that affect business. Specifying an exit strategy translates to the setting of ‘that’ end goal which signifies an entrepreneur’s exit from one’s venture. This end goal when set during the initial phase of a business start-up may have no relevance in the passage of time. This is an analogy to Prof. DeSouza’s perception of the effectiveness of long term planning like Five Year Plans etc.
It would be appropriate to quote this following as an example for an inefficient exit strategy. Sabeer Bhatia founded “Hotmail” – the first web based email service in the world. Armed with a completely new business model, Hotmail decided to offer its services for free and earned revenues entirely through advertisements. One year after its genesis, with more than 7 million subscribers, Sabeer Bhatia shaped his exit strategy in the form of selling “Hotmail” to Microsoft for $400 million. “Hotmail” marked Microsoft’s single most important pathway into the dot com industry; from where it still obtains a sizeable part of its revenue. Sabeer Bhatia started another entrepreneurial venture called Arzoo.com two years after selling Hotmail. It had to be shut down after the dot com burst. The reasons why this could have been an inefficient exit strategy may be due to the following
The inability to understand the emergence of Web based email services as a highly profitable business venture
The inability to think “Big” and settling down for modest goals
The inability to fight the lack of intrinsic intellectual and business capabilities of the business venture by hiring highly competent individuals to the organization.
Lack of clear direction about potential business opportunities and potential.
The concept of “React rather than Predict” may be relevant to the formulation of goals corresponding to exit strategies in current agile business environments. It is important to acknowledge that human needs and goals also dynamically vary according to changes in the environment from personal, professional and business perspectives.
Another interesting example is the case of India’s biggest IT organization – Infosys. Infosys was started in 1981 as a Software solutions provider by a group of 6 individuals. Within a few years of its existence, Infosys was offered a takeover deal from a bigger US based organization for a few millions dollars. This deal was considered highly lucrative by 5 of the founders and they were ready to accept the deal. However one of the founders -Mr.Narayanamurthy was completely against this exit strategy. Consequently this deal was stalked off much to the disappointment of the other five founders. If this modest exit strategy had been implemented, India wouldn’t have witnessed a company that provides 66,000 jobs, with revenue of $ 2.15 billion.
My argument is that, more often than not, exit strategies formulated during the genesis of business ventures tend to be a modest evaluation of one’s own capabilities and resources. Evaluation of intrinsic capabilities, resource, market opportunities should drive the need for exit strategy at any point of the functioning of a business. In current business environments, short term plans and fast results shape the agile functioning of organizations. Similarly, emergence and agility should be practiced in knowing when to call the end game.
Author: Lokesh Ramani (lokeshr@u.washington.edu)
Exit Strategy: Is it wise to formulate your end game too soon?
With the advent of emerging online technologies, web 2.0 standards, the market has witnessed a surge in the number of new ventures and businesses, offering services to a wide range of customers. As an entrepreneurial unit, I understand that it is pertinent to devise an exit strategy plan for venture capitalists and investors to gauge the big picture of such a potential investment. Due to such a dependency, I wonder if entrepreneurs underestimate the potential of their ventures and settle for a less effective and profitable exit strategy option. I thought it may be pertinent to combine some concepts from the previous class “Management of Information Organizations” taught by Prof. DeSouza and discuss about exit strategy in entrepreneurial ventures and their implications.
In a dynamic environment with fluctuating market trends and influx of cutting edge new technologies and ideas, it is my opinion that to define an exit strategy at the very start of an entrepreneurial venture may not be an effective and efficient decision.
We are in the era of Agility- agility in thinking, agility in actions, agility in adaptation and agility in decision-making. Planning for an exit strategy at the start of a business venture contradicts the concept of agile management organizations, where “Emergence” replaces the concept of planning. Specifically, in rapidly changing business environments, scoping out an early exit strategy may lead to two consequences
Closing a successful business venture too early without perceiving potential high monetary rewards due to dynamic market trends
Prolonging a successful business venture to a potential failure without perceiving damaging market trends due to a rigidly defined exit strategy
I strongly believe that the goals set for an organization should be short-term and highly adaptable in reaction to internal and external forces that affect business. Specifying an exit strategy translates to the setting of ‘that’ end goal which signifies an entrepreneur’s exit from one’s venture. This end goal when set during the initial phase of a business start-up may have no relevance in the passage of time. This is an analogy to Prof. DeSouza’s perception of the effectiveness of long term planning like Five Year Plans etc.
It would be appropriate to quote this following as an example for an inefficient exit strategy. Sabeer Bhatia founded “Hotmail” – the first web based email service in the world. Armed with a completely new business model, Hotmail decided to offer its services for free and earned revenues entirely through advertisements. One year after its genesis, with more than 7 million subscribers, Sabeer Bhatia shaped his exit strategy in the form of selling “Hotmail” to Microsoft for $400 million. “Hotmail” marked Microsoft’s single most important pathway into the dot com industry; from where it still obtains a sizeable part of its revenue. Sabeer Bhatia started another entrepreneurial venture called Arzoo.com two years after selling Hotmail. It had to be shut down after the dot com burst. The reasons why this could have been an inefficient exit strategy may be due to the following
The inability to understand the emergence of Web based email services as a highly profitable business venture
The inability to think “Big” and settling down for modest goals
The inability to fight the lack of intrinsic intellectual and business capabilities of the business venture by hiring highly competent individuals to the organization.
Lack of clear direction about potential business opportunities and potential.
The concept of “React rather than Predict” may be relevant to the formulation of goals corresponding to exit strategies in current agile business environments. It is important to acknowledge that human needs and goals also dynamically vary according to changes in the environment from personal, professional and business perspectives.
Another interesting example is the case of India’s biggest IT organization – Infosys. Infosys was started in 1981 as a Software solutions provider by a group of 6 individuals. Within a few years of its existence, Infosys was offered a takeover deal from a bigger US based organization for a few millions dollars. This deal was considered highly lucrative by 5 of the founders and they were ready to accept the deal. However one of the founders -Mr.Narayanamurthy was completely against this exit strategy. Consequently this deal was stalked off much to the disappointment of the other five founders. If this modest exit strategy had been implemented, India wouldn’t have witnessed a company that provides 66,000 jobs, with revenue of $ 2.15 billion.
My argument is that, more often than not, exit strategies formulated during the genesis of business ventures tend to be a modest evaluation of one’s own capabilities and resources. Evaluation of intrinsic capabilities, resource, market opportunities should drive the need for exit strategy at any point of the functioning of a business. In current business environments, short term plans and fast results shape the agile functioning of organizations. Similarly, emergence and agility should be practiced in knowing when to call the end game.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Reflection - Sandy Chan
Reflection – Sandy Chan
Managing Change in IT Departments
In this class, we learned a lot about how to lead/manage changes in organizations from a manager’s perspective. The types of changes we discussed varied as changes could take many forms. Despite the type of changes, there always seemed to be some common nature among all the changes that people can identify and write books about. I started to think about the differences of changes. Would there be a difference in managing changes in an IT department and a financial department?
My answer is yes. In fact, I think managing changes in an IT department could be a lot easier than managing changes in any other departments in an organization. Think about how IT has changed over the past few years and you should be able to understand why. “Change” is native to IT. I cannot think of any other departments in an organization that has been changing as much as IT over the past decade. People who have worked in IT for years should have benefited from experiencing a series of technology changes. These experiences should have made them less resistant to changes.
When “change” becomes deservedly, managing changes is much easier. Of course, there’s always the possibility of people resisting changes due to their unpleasant change experience from the past. In the IT industry, however, everything changes so fast that sometimes you either change or fall behind. The results of your decision come out in a relatively short period compared to changes in other industry. Thus, IT people should know better than just resisting changes for no logical reasons. I believe that people are less resistant to changes when they are in an environment that constantly changes because “change” has become part of their “norms.”
I am currently doing my internship in an IT department that is going through a major change in its project life cycle. Although I do not have other change management experiences that I can compare it with, I feel that the people that I am working with now are mostly looking forward to adapting the new process. The level of resistant is very low. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone complaining about the new process. The company provides training lessons for employees and the employees are open and willing to learn new skills. I often think about the case studies we’ve discussed in class and the real change that I am part of in my internship. When comparing the two, it is amazing how smooth everything is going in my department. But then, chances are the real issues are still under the surface waiting to emerge. It’s still too early to say the change is a success.
Reference
Rapken, M (2007). “Guiding Your IT Department on the Road to Change” Retrieved on November 27, 2007 from http://www.cio.com/article/123757/Guiding_Your_IT_Department_on_the_Road_to_Change/1
Managing Change in IT Departments
In this class, we learned a lot about how to lead/manage changes in organizations from a manager’s perspective. The types of changes we discussed varied as changes could take many forms. Despite the type of changes, there always seemed to be some common nature among all the changes that people can identify and write books about. I started to think about the differences of changes. Would there be a difference in managing changes in an IT department and a financial department?
My answer is yes. In fact, I think managing changes in an IT department could be a lot easier than managing changes in any other departments in an organization. Think about how IT has changed over the past few years and you should be able to understand why. “Change” is native to IT. I cannot think of any other departments in an organization that has been changing as much as IT over the past decade. People who have worked in IT for years should have benefited from experiencing a series of technology changes. These experiences should have made them less resistant to changes.
When “change” becomes deservedly, managing changes is much easier. Of course, there’s always the possibility of people resisting changes due to their unpleasant change experience from the past. In the IT industry, however, everything changes so fast that sometimes you either change or fall behind. The results of your decision come out in a relatively short period compared to changes in other industry. Thus, IT people should know better than just resisting changes for no logical reasons. I believe that people are less resistant to changes when they are in an environment that constantly changes because “change” has become part of their “norms.”
I am currently doing my internship in an IT department that is going through a major change in its project life cycle. Although I do not have other change management experiences that I can compare it with, I feel that the people that I am working with now are mostly looking forward to adapting the new process. The level of resistant is very low. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone complaining about the new process. The company provides training lessons for employees and the employees are open and willing to learn new skills. I often think about the case studies we’ve discussed in class and the real change that I am part of in my internship. When comparing the two, it is amazing how smooth everything is going in my department. But then, chances are the real issues are still under the surface waiting to emerge. It’s still too early to say the change is a success.
Reference
Rapken, M (2007). “Guiding Your IT Department on the Road to Change” Retrieved on November 27, 2007 from http://www.cio.com/article/123757/Guiding_Your_IT_Department_on_the_Road_to_Change/1
Reflection - Cen (Mia) Zhao
Reflection about Jules Case
In one of our classes, we talked about case of unpredictability. Jules, once the CEO of a large manufacturing and distribution company, was fired ultimately because he controlled too much during board meeting. After discussion, most students think it is board members’ responsibility to do their homework and to get prepared for the meeting agenda. Theoretically, it is a wired situation that cannot be fully understood by us. What’s wrong with preparing and organizing everything well?
This situation remind me a sentence: The only drawback of him/her is he/she is too perfect. So here, I would like to say that the only problem with Jules, which is also the fatal one, is he is too competent. He set everything up before the board meeting and made sure that there would not be any problem with the proposals. If I were the board member who has been working with Jules for ten years, I would do nothing about such situation. I would feel so glad to just sit there and let him worry about everything. However, if Jules just got his position and never worked with me before, things would become totally different. Think about if I met with a boy who performed everything so perfectly during the dating. I would think this guy must hide something bad that I didn’t know.
People have assumption that most human beings are imperfect. According to this assumption, if one person performed perfectly, I would have two kinds of thoughts. One is this person is not as perfect as it seems to be. The other is this person is not normal human being. If I had the first thought, I would not choose to fully trust this person because I haven’t known enough about him/her. If I had second thought, I might trust this person but I would never make friends with him/her because getting along with this type of person would make me feel stressed and depressed. No matter which thought I had, they were all negative.
Let’s back to this case. If I were the CEO, I would make one or two small mistakes purposely in the board meeting and let at least some of board members disagree with me. In that way, they would have something to discuss. Then, they would get satisfied after at least part of their opinions were adopted. Certainly, it would waste contain amount of time on the meeting. But from the long perspective, it saved a lot of time for board members to complain about powerlessness and for CEO to handle with such situation.
I would like to use the example of playing poker here. If you always won money when playing poker with your friends, in the end, on one would like to play with you again. At that time, you could win nothing. But if you lose money purposefully at some times and let others believe that they do have a chance to win, you could play it all the time. So in order to win the money in a long time, be sure the let people keep uncertainties.
In one of our classes, we talked about case of unpredictability. Jules, once the CEO of a large manufacturing and distribution company, was fired ultimately because he controlled too much during board meeting. After discussion, most students think it is board members’ responsibility to do their homework and to get prepared for the meeting agenda. Theoretically, it is a wired situation that cannot be fully understood by us. What’s wrong with preparing and organizing everything well?
This situation remind me a sentence: The only drawback of him/her is he/she is too perfect. So here, I would like to say that the only problem with Jules, which is also the fatal one, is he is too competent. He set everything up before the board meeting and made sure that there would not be any problem with the proposals. If I were the board member who has been working with Jules for ten years, I would do nothing about such situation. I would feel so glad to just sit there and let him worry about everything. However, if Jules just got his position and never worked with me before, things would become totally different. Think about if I met with a boy who performed everything so perfectly during the dating. I would think this guy must hide something bad that I didn’t know.
People have assumption that most human beings are imperfect. According to this assumption, if one person performed perfectly, I would have two kinds of thoughts. One is this person is not as perfect as it seems to be. The other is this person is not normal human being. If I had the first thought, I would not choose to fully trust this person because I haven’t known enough about him/her. If I had second thought, I might trust this person but I would never make friends with him/her because getting along with this type of person would make me feel stressed and depressed. No matter which thought I had, they were all negative.
Let’s back to this case. If I were the CEO, I would make one or two small mistakes purposely in the board meeting and let at least some of board members disagree with me. In that way, they would have something to discuss. Then, they would get satisfied after at least part of their opinions were adopted. Certainly, it would waste contain amount of time on the meeting. But from the long perspective, it saved a lot of time for board members to complain about powerlessness and for CEO to handle with such situation.
I would like to use the example of playing poker here. If you always won money when playing poker with your friends, in the end, on one would like to play with you again. At that time, you could win nothing. But if you lose money purposefully at some times and let others believe that they do have a chance to win, you could play it all the time. So in order to win the money in a long time, be sure the let people keep uncertainties.
Reflection - Rachel Elkington
Inspiration Much Needed From Mr. Ramani
Today our class had the great opportunity to hear some absolutely great remarks from Lokesh’s Dad Mr. Ramani. I had been looking forward to hearing him talk since it was announced that he was coming to class.
Mr. Ramani touched on a topic near and dear to my heart – the importance of an education in The Classics in the context of working in business. At times in the course of my MSIM education, I have felt that I am at a disadvantage to many of my peers in the program. I had never written a line of code before our technology class last spring. XML sounded like the most intimidating undertaking I’d had since my undergraduate run-in with a required Math class. I have at times envied those with professional experience with anything technical. My undergraduate degree in Religious Studies (to which I added other liberal arts electives just for the heck of it: Latin, Creative Writing, British Culture Seminar, Art History, etc.) has at times looked to me about as useful in my current context as day old sushi. I took heart listening to Mr. Ramani explain how an acquaintance with the classics helps you make good decision in business. He cited one of my all-time favorite works: The Bhagavad Gita. I first encountered this work in one of my religious studies classes that focused on the history of India. Now, my worn-out, marked-up, post-it-noted copy is one of my most treasured books. I come back to it again and again to review how a person should act in the world. Of course, we will get more about systems of thought and action in our ethics class next quarter, but it was good to hear the subject touched upon today.
The business experience Mr. Ramani talked about was very interesting. He spoke about the market factors in India in the context of selling air conditioners. He identified specific reasons why certain companies had succeeded and other had failed in the market. There was much to be learned from his perspective, the most important of which is set a good price.
I found all of what Mr. Ramani had to say uplifting. On a gray, dark day on which I happen to have a cold, it was really fantastic to hear that it is okay not to get things right the first time. The examples given of great people in history who had failed before was particularly heartening to me. I think we should have Mr. Ramani come back in the dark, cold end of winter quarter to give us a dose of optimism and focus again, I know I’ll be able to use it.
Today our class had the great opportunity to hear some absolutely great remarks from Lokesh’s Dad Mr. Ramani. I had been looking forward to hearing him talk since it was announced that he was coming to class.
Mr. Ramani touched on a topic near and dear to my heart – the importance of an education in The Classics in the context of working in business. At times in the course of my MSIM education, I have felt that I am at a disadvantage to many of my peers in the program. I had never written a line of code before our technology class last spring. XML sounded like the most intimidating undertaking I’d had since my undergraduate run-in with a required Math class. I have at times envied those with professional experience with anything technical. My undergraduate degree in Religious Studies (to which I added other liberal arts electives just for the heck of it: Latin, Creative Writing, British Culture Seminar, Art History, etc.) has at times looked to me about as useful in my current context as day old sushi. I took heart listening to Mr. Ramani explain how an acquaintance with the classics helps you make good decision in business. He cited one of my all-time favorite works: The Bhagavad Gita. I first encountered this work in one of my religious studies classes that focused on the history of India. Now, my worn-out, marked-up, post-it-noted copy is one of my most treasured books. I come back to it again and again to review how a person should act in the world. Of course, we will get more about systems of thought and action in our ethics class next quarter, but it was good to hear the subject touched upon today.
The business experience Mr. Ramani talked about was very interesting. He spoke about the market factors in India in the context of selling air conditioners. He identified specific reasons why certain companies had succeeded and other had failed in the market. There was much to be learned from his perspective, the most important of which is set a good price.
I found all of what Mr. Ramani had to say uplifting. On a gray, dark day on which I happen to have a cold, it was really fantastic to hear that it is okay not to get things right the first time. The examples given of great people in history who had failed before was particularly heartening to me. I think we should have Mr. Ramani come back in the dark, cold end of winter quarter to give us a dose of optimism and focus again, I know I’ll be able to use it.
Reflection - Rachel Elkington
Sense and Simplicity: Count Basie v Benny Goodman
For class on Monday, we had a fabulous presentation by MSIM’s own Jill Woelfer. Jill presented the paper she did as an independent study for the change management class. She applied the Jazz Metaphor to a situation she had experienced in her professional career at Phillips. Her application of the metaphor was productive, especially in that it described why the Phillips divisions in Germany and the one in Seattle had major difficulty working together: they spoke different organizational languages. The Seattle division operated on the complex adaptive model while the plant in Germany used a more organizationally rigid approach. These two perspectives were not interoperable when they tried to collaborate.
Jill explained to us how the Count Basie Band and the Benny Goodman Band spoke different organizational languages in much the same contrasting fashion. The Basie band operated on a complex adaptive model, while the Goodman band was more hierarchical and rigid. Both made fantastic and commercially successful music, but the process they used was very different. Before playing music from each band for us, Jill asked us to each individually think about how we anticipated each band would sound based on what she had told us about their organizational languages. I thought that the Basie band would have a bass instrument that the rest of the band would follow. I thought this because my Dad is a musician – he has played bass occasionally in the Magnolia band here in Seattle. He told me that in an improvisational band, there is one instrument that keeps the structure intact no matter what, and as a musician, if you are ever lost, you should listen for the bass. So, I listened for the bass and didn’t hear it. How, I thought, do the musicians find the common line in all that improvisation? I posed the question to Jill and she said that since the Basie band played in loud dance halls, the low bass could be hard to hear, so it was changed to a higher-toned drum to keep the band together. So, there was one instrument that was serving as the orientation for all the musicians, but wasn’t the one I thought.
This has interesting applications for change management, I think. Complex adaptive behavior is a great way for individuals and groups within organizations to deal with change. However, it does require some basic orientation to a common perspective. That is essential in getting quickly changing action to cohere properly. Someone has to be – if not leading the change – coordinating it in such a way that everyone can get a basic read on where they are and what the next step is. I think this roughly maps to John Kotter’s idea about communicating the vision. All the musicians had the same vision – the same musical phrase – and constant orientation by way of the drums, in case they got lost. Basie’s band did the communication of the vision in a very free-form way. Goodman’s band also communicated the vision, beforehand in the form of sheet music that was to be played exactly as written.
One of the main take-aways from Jill’s paper that she left with us is that both organizational languages or styles work, but it doesn’t work to mix them much. The vision can be communicated through subtle coordination or by authority-driven assignments, but trying both at the same time is very difficult. The organizational dynamics that must be present for each are mutually exclusive. That is important for us to remember as managers in the future – one of the most common scenarios in change management is two companies coming together (either by merger, acquisition, or by collaboration on a contracted project) to work together. Their styles can cause a huge amount of conflict and discord. Jill’s paper gave us a metaphorical framework through which to think about that discord.
For class on Monday, we had a fabulous presentation by MSIM’s own Jill Woelfer. Jill presented the paper she did as an independent study for the change management class. She applied the Jazz Metaphor to a situation she had experienced in her professional career at Phillips. Her application of the metaphor was productive, especially in that it described why the Phillips divisions in Germany and the one in Seattle had major difficulty working together: they spoke different organizational languages. The Seattle division operated on the complex adaptive model while the plant in Germany used a more organizationally rigid approach. These two perspectives were not interoperable when they tried to collaborate.
Jill explained to us how the Count Basie Band and the Benny Goodman Band spoke different organizational languages in much the same contrasting fashion. The Basie band operated on a complex adaptive model, while the Goodman band was more hierarchical and rigid. Both made fantastic and commercially successful music, but the process they used was very different. Before playing music from each band for us, Jill asked us to each individually think about how we anticipated each band would sound based on what she had told us about their organizational languages. I thought that the Basie band would have a bass instrument that the rest of the band would follow. I thought this because my Dad is a musician – he has played bass occasionally in the Magnolia band here in Seattle. He told me that in an improvisational band, there is one instrument that keeps the structure intact no matter what, and as a musician, if you are ever lost, you should listen for the bass. So, I listened for the bass and didn’t hear it. How, I thought, do the musicians find the common line in all that improvisation? I posed the question to Jill and she said that since the Basie band played in loud dance halls, the low bass could be hard to hear, so it was changed to a higher-toned drum to keep the band together. So, there was one instrument that was serving as the orientation for all the musicians, but wasn’t the one I thought.
This has interesting applications for change management, I think. Complex adaptive behavior is a great way for individuals and groups within organizations to deal with change. However, it does require some basic orientation to a common perspective. That is essential in getting quickly changing action to cohere properly. Someone has to be – if not leading the change – coordinating it in such a way that everyone can get a basic read on where they are and what the next step is. I think this roughly maps to John Kotter’s idea about communicating the vision. All the musicians had the same vision – the same musical phrase – and constant orientation by way of the drums, in case they got lost. Basie’s band did the communication of the vision in a very free-form way. Goodman’s band also communicated the vision, beforehand in the form of sheet music that was to be played exactly as written.
One of the main take-aways from Jill’s paper that she left with us is that both organizational languages or styles work, but it doesn’t work to mix them much. The vision can be communicated through subtle coordination or by authority-driven assignments, but trying both at the same time is very difficult. The organizational dynamics that must be present for each are mutually exclusive. That is important for us to remember as managers in the future – one of the most common scenarios in change management is two companies coming together (either by merger, acquisition, or by collaboration on a contracted project) to work together. Their styles can cause a huge amount of conflict and discord. Jill’s paper gave us a metaphorical framework through which to think about that discord.
Reflection- Manaswita
Can a new company, in a different country, duplicate the Wal-Mart model?
When we sent out the first draft of our research paper on Wal-Mart to Kevin, he stated an interesting question in his feedback and asked us to consider writing about it in our paper. The question was “can a new company, in a different country, duplicate the Wal-Mart model?” Though we tried to answer the question in our paper, I think we deviated from the actual issue. Instead we changed the question to “Would the Wal-Mart’s strategies work in a different country?” and gave the examples of Wal-Mart’s failure in South Korea, Japan and Germany and its recent joining of hands with Indian cell phone company, Bharati Enterprises to open wholesale stores in India.
Through this reflection I would try to answer the original question; can a new company, in a different country, duplicate the Wal-Mart model?
So, what is business model of a company? According to Osterwalder, Pigneur and Tucci (2005), “a business model is a conceptual tool that contains a big set of elements and their relationships and allows expressing the business logic of a specific firm. It is a description of the value a company offers to one or several segments of customers and of the architecture of the firm and its network of partners for creating, marketing, and delivering this value and relationship capital, to generate profitable and sustainable revenue streams.” [i]
Has anyone even tried to replicate Wal-Mart’s business model- its values, its work culture and its strategies that it uses to create a name for itself in the retail industry?
Ikea has. Following are the few similarities between Ikea’s and Wal-Mart’s business model:
Wal-Mart
IKEA
World’s largest retailer, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, USA
World’s largest retailer of home products, headquartered in Sweden.
Vision statement: Always low prices
Vision statement: Low price but not at any price
Production takes place in low cost countries such as China, Bangladesh, Honduras
Production takes place mainly in China and Poland
Compromises on quality of the goods by cutting costs: YES
Compromises on quality: NO
However, there are mixed thoughts about the quality of its goods. Some believe that Ikea does compromise on the quality and some think that it has the best quality of home products that a company can offer at low price.
An article on CFO.com stated that “IKEA, balances quality and price in the furniture it offers through more than 130 stores in 26 countries.” [ii]
Although IKEA has replicated Wal-Mart’s business model of selling goods to its shoppers at the lowest possible price, there is a basic difference. IKEA enforces its suppliers to follow the quality standards and does not push them to compromise on the quality and to succumb to cost cutting strategies. To cut the cost it concentrates on the construction of the goods and packaging.
However, IKEA is not the only company that seems to have adopted the Wal-Mart ways of doing the business. If we look around in the business world, we will see that every company has a trace of Wal-Mart’s strategy of selling goods at low price, whether the company was started before Wal-Mart or after it, such as McDonald, Dell, Fisher-Price, Southwest airlines etc. “Gone are the days of giving your patronage to the store that can provide the best shopping environment, customer service, and quality, well-made products. It seems the only thing everyone cares about nowadays is where to buy the most "cheap stuff" for the lowest prices.” [iii]
The low price strategy of Wal-Mart is not the only strategy that gives it edge over its competitors. So, what are the other factors that make it different? Wal-Mart has established strong relationship with its suppliers, has talented workforce and managers, has a strong distribution system and has implemented the IT in its business model. Also, it is good at cutting costs, good at unethical business practices. Explore the market and look for the opportunities and analyze what consumers need: Wal-Mart started with this strategy and Sam Walton knew that the consumers wanted low priced goods. ‘Low price’ has become the buzz word in business these days. Today in his talk in the class, Mr. Ramani mentioned that one of the key factors of LG Electronics’ success in India was that it sold its air conditioners at better price, price that Indians could pay for. Another question that arises now is that, would a new company in a different country ever want to replicate Wal-Mart’s model? Yes, for all the revenues that Wal-Mart generates with its business model but No for all the unethical business practices.
However, it would not be very simple for new companies to replicate the Wal-Mart’s business strategies for minting money because of many factors that influence the business of a company in any country. Firstly, Wal-Mart is an anti union company and believes in cutting cost by any means. Policy and laws, political, social, cultural and economic environment of the country would play an important role in this case. It is not possible to emulate the business model of any successful company completely, whether the company is Wal-Mart of USA or Toyota of Japan. Conversely, the new companies can learn lessons from these companies and can imbibe their success factors in their own business model by selecting the strategy that could fit in their country’s current political and business scenario. So, replication of the business model should be backed with some innovative ideas.
There are much more beyond low price strategy that makes a company successful. For eg., automobile companies in USA and European countries have been trying to imitate the manufacturing process of Toyota but they have failed constantly in their effort. So, to stay in the race or to join the bandwagon the companies have to understand what makes their competitors different from others and then they need to come up with their own philosophy, which could be a blend of their novel ideas and the ideas of their role model.
For eg., Wal-Mart’s Michael Bergdahl, a former director was quoted in an article titled “Can Your Company Compete Against Wal-Mart”, in Industry Week, “One way that Wal-Mart brings in products so quickly is their unique relationship with vendor partners. Other companies can replicate this model and in fact Bergdahl suggests that companies take advantage of professional trade associations to create teams of local companies. And use the organization as a platform to share best practices advises Bergdahl.” [iv]
Therefore, innovation in the business model is the success factor. If we look at the business models of successful companies in different countries, then we will realize that each one has a different business model and no company is imitation of its competitor. Wal-Mart in retail industry is successful name because it could push down the cost, Toyota in automobile industry had an innovative idea of lean manufacturing system, Google’s business model revolves around the advertisements, Apple launched its iPod when the MP3 market was niche etc. So, doing things differently at right time is the successful business model irrespective of the location of the company. Moreover, the company should also be flexible and should keep implementing new elements in its processes.
[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_model
[ii] http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/3011699?f=options
[iii] Peception, Reality and IKEA, 2005, Business Week.
[iv] http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=14058
When we sent out the first draft of our research paper on Wal-Mart to Kevin, he stated an interesting question in his feedback and asked us to consider writing about it in our paper. The question was “can a new company, in a different country, duplicate the Wal-Mart model?” Though we tried to answer the question in our paper, I think we deviated from the actual issue. Instead we changed the question to “Would the Wal-Mart’s strategies work in a different country?” and gave the examples of Wal-Mart’s failure in South Korea, Japan and Germany and its recent joining of hands with Indian cell phone company, Bharati Enterprises to open wholesale stores in India.
Through this reflection I would try to answer the original question; can a new company, in a different country, duplicate the Wal-Mart model?
So, what is business model of a company? According to Osterwalder, Pigneur and Tucci (2005), “a business model is a conceptual tool that contains a big set of elements and their relationships and allows expressing the business logic of a specific firm. It is a description of the value a company offers to one or several segments of customers and of the architecture of the firm and its network of partners for creating, marketing, and delivering this value and relationship capital, to generate profitable and sustainable revenue streams.” [i]
Has anyone even tried to replicate Wal-Mart’s business model- its values, its work culture and its strategies that it uses to create a name for itself in the retail industry?
Ikea has. Following are the few similarities between Ikea’s and Wal-Mart’s business model:
Wal-Mart
IKEA
World’s largest retailer, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, USA
World’s largest retailer of home products, headquartered in Sweden.
Vision statement: Always low prices
Vision statement: Low price but not at any price
Production takes place in low cost countries such as China, Bangladesh, Honduras
Production takes place mainly in China and Poland
Compromises on quality of the goods by cutting costs: YES
Compromises on quality: NO
However, there are mixed thoughts about the quality of its goods. Some believe that Ikea does compromise on the quality and some think that it has the best quality of home products that a company can offer at low price.
An article on CFO.com stated that “IKEA, balances quality and price in the furniture it offers through more than 130 stores in 26 countries.” [ii]
Although IKEA has replicated Wal-Mart’s business model of selling goods to its shoppers at the lowest possible price, there is a basic difference. IKEA enforces its suppliers to follow the quality standards and does not push them to compromise on the quality and to succumb to cost cutting strategies. To cut the cost it concentrates on the construction of the goods and packaging.
However, IKEA is not the only company that seems to have adopted the Wal-Mart ways of doing the business. If we look around in the business world, we will see that every company has a trace of Wal-Mart’s strategy of selling goods at low price, whether the company was started before Wal-Mart or after it, such as McDonald, Dell, Fisher-Price, Southwest airlines etc. “Gone are the days of giving your patronage to the store that can provide the best shopping environment, customer service, and quality, well-made products. It seems the only thing everyone cares about nowadays is where to buy the most "cheap stuff" for the lowest prices.” [iii]
The low price strategy of Wal-Mart is not the only strategy that gives it edge over its competitors. So, what are the other factors that make it different? Wal-Mart has established strong relationship with its suppliers, has talented workforce and managers, has a strong distribution system and has implemented the IT in its business model. Also, it is good at cutting costs, good at unethical business practices. Explore the market and look for the opportunities and analyze what consumers need: Wal-Mart started with this strategy and Sam Walton knew that the consumers wanted low priced goods. ‘Low price’ has become the buzz word in business these days. Today in his talk in the class, Mr. Ramani mentioned that one of the key factors of LG Electronics’ success in India was that it sold its air conditioners at better price, price that Indians could pay for. Another question that arises now is that, would a new company in a different country ever want to replicate Wal-Mart’s model? Yes, for all the revenues that Wal-Mart generates with its business model but No for all the unethical business practices.
However, it would not be very simple for new companies to replicate the Wal-Mart’s business strategies for minting money because of many factors that influence the business of a company in any country. Firstly, Wal-Mart is an anti union company and believes in cutting cost by any means. Policy and laws, political, social, cultural and economic environment of the country would play an important role in this case. It is not possible to emulate the business model of any successful company completely, whether the company is Wal-Mart of USA or Toyota of Japan. Conversely, the new companies can learn lessons from these companies and can imbibe their success factors in their own business model by selecting the strategy that could fit in their country’s current political and business scenario. So, replication of the business model should be backed with some innovative ideas.
There are much more beyond low price strategy that makes a company successful. For eg., automobile companies in USA and European countries have been trying to imitate the manufacturing process of Toyota but they have failed constantly in their effort. So, to stay in the race or to join the bandwagon the companies have to understand what makes their competitors different from others and then they need to come up with their own philosophy, which could be a blend of their novel ideas and the ideas of their role model.
For eg., Wal-Mart’s Michael Bergdahl, a former director was quoted in an article titled “Can Your Company Compete Against Wal-Mart”, in Industry Week, “One way that Wal-Mart brings in products so quickly is their unique relationship with vendor partners. Other companies can replicate this model and in fact Bergdahl suggests that companies take advantage of professional trade associations to create teams of local companies. And use the organization as a platform to share best practices advises Bergdahl.” [iv]
Therefore, innovation in the business model is the success factor. If we look at the business models of successful companies in different countries, then we will realize that each one has a different business model and no company is imitation of its competitor. Wal-Mart in retail industry is successful name because it could push down the cost, Toyota in automobile industry had an innovative idea of lean manufacturing system, Google’s business model revolves around the advertisements, Apple launched its iPod when the MP3 market was niche etc. So, doing things differently at right time is the successful business model irrespective of the location of the company. Moreover, the company should also be flexible and should keep implementing new elements in its processes.
[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_model
[ii] http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/3011699?f=options
[iii] Peception, Reality and IKEA, 2005, Business Week.
[iv] http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=14058
Reflection - John Tulinsky
Kindle: A Disruptive Innovation?
Stimulating and sustaining innovation was a common topic for discussion in IMT581. The holy grail of innovation is to create a disruptive technology. Disruptive technologies are innovations that result in new markets and new business models (Christenson, Johnson, Rigby; 2002). Examples of disruptive innovations include the personal computer, digital photography and VoIP technology (Wikipedia, Disruptive Technology). Amazon.com recently introduced Kindle, a wireless reading device to the market. Kindle is based upon a new display technology called electronic paper. Amazon claims that electronic paper eliminates the glare and eye strain associated with reading from a computer monitor and that reading from it is comparable to reading a printed book. The Kindle has 180 MB of memory available for the storage of content and the memory can be expanded via an SD memory card slot. Scanning through the books available for purchase from Amazon.com shows that books on the New York Times bestseller list are electronic files ranging in size from about 500 to 4000 KB. This means that the Kindle can easily contain a library of 50 or more books. The books can be purchased and downloaded immediately through a wireless connection. Subscriptions to newspapers, magazines and blogs are also available. In comparison to embarking on a trip with a book, the day’s newspaper and a magazine or two the Kindle seems to offer many advantages. With its potential to replace books, newspapers, and magazines the Kindle appears to be a candidate to become a disruptive technology. But can it really replace printed media?
Consider some of the challenges faced by Kindle (Levy, 2007; Amazon’s New Book Reader, 2007).
Price: Kindle currently retails for $400 and books are $9.95
Content is in a proprietary format, protected by DRM
Kindle is a standalone device: it can’t be linked or networked with other devices
Proprietary issues mean that content must be purchased from Amazon and Sprint must be used for wireless connectivity.
An important characteristic of disruptive innovations is that they serve a previously unknown or underserved market. An additional characteristic is that often they are only recognized in retrospect (Christenson et al, 2002). When I look at a device like Kindle, the product of years of research and launched with all of the power of a multi-billion dollar company behind it I’m skeptical that it will be truly disruptive. I have no doubt that it is a well-designed piece of cutting-edge technology. However Amazon is a large, successful company and by its very nature is unlikely to take the chance of investing in the development of a new product for an uncertain market. Kindle is clearly targeted to a demographic that can afford to spend $400 on an electronic device and who wishes to have access to large amounts of information from numerous media sources. However, these people already carry a laptop and a smart phone. Is the additional functionality provided by Kindle enough to overcome its cost and the inconvenience of yet another electronic device, and its related AC adapter, memory cards, passwords, and so on?
As a pioneer in ecommerce Amazon is a company that is based upon a disruptive innovation. Christenson et al argue that disruptive innovations are the key to sustained long-term growth. The challenge is for a profitable company, with all of its obligations to shareholders, customers and employees, to find a way to develop them.
References
Christenson, C.M.; Johnson, M.W.; Rigby, D.K. (2002). How to Identify and Build Disruptive New Businesses. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 22-31.
Levy, S. (2007, November 26). The Future of Reading. Newsweek. Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.newsweek.com/id/70983/page/1.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2007, November 21). Amazon’s New Book Reader Destined to Fail. The Googlization of Everything. Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/2007/11/amazons_new_book_reader_destin.php
Stimulating and sustaining innovation was a common topic for discussion in IMT581. The holy grail of innovation is to create a disruptive technology. Disruptive technologies are innovations that result in new markets and new business models (Christenson, Johnson, Rigby; 2002). Examples of disruptive innovations include the personal computer, digital photography and VoIP technology (Wikipedia, Disruptive Technology). Amazon.com recently introduced Kindle, a wireless reading device to the market. Kindle is based upon a new display technology called electronic paper. Amazon claims that electronic paper eliminates the glare and eye strain associated with reading from a computer monitor and that reading from it is comparable to reading a printed book. The Kindle has 180 MB of memory available for the storage of content and the memory can be expanded via an SD memory card slot. Scanning through the books available for purchase from Amazon.com shows that books on the New York Times bestseller list are electronic files ranging in size from about 500 to 4000 KB. This means that the Kindle can easily contain a library of 50 or more books. The books can be purchased and downloaded immediately through a wireless connection. Subscriptions to newspapers, magazines and blogs are also available. In comparison to embarking on a trip with a book, the day’s newspaper and a magazine or two the Kindle seems to offer many advantages. With its potential to replace books, newspapers, and magazines the Kindle appears to be a candidate to become a disruptive technology. But can it really replace printed media?
Consider some of the challenges faced by Kindle (Levy, 2007; Amazon’s New Book Reader, 2007).
Price: Kindle currently retails for $400 and books are $9.95
Content is in a proprietary format, protected by DRM
Kindle is a standalone device: it can’t be linked or networked with other devices
Proprietary issues mean that content must be purchased from Amazon and Sprint must be used for wireless connectivity.
An important characteristic of disruptive innovations is that they serve a previously unknown or underserved market. An additional characteristic is that often they are only recognized in retrospect (Christenson et al, 2002). When I look at a device like Kindle, the product of years of research and launched with all of the power of a multi-billion dollar company behind it I’m skeptical that it will be truly disruptive. I have no doubt that it is a well-designed piece of cutting-edge technology. However Amazon is a large, successful company and by its very nature is unlikely to take the chance of investing in the development of a new product for an uncertain market. Kindle is clearly targeted to a demographic that can afford to spend $400 on an electronic device and who wishes to have access to large amounts of information from numerous media sources. However, these people already carry a laptop and a smart phone. Is the additional functionality provided by Kindle enough to overcome its cost and the inconvenience of yet another electronic device, and its related AC adapter, memory cards, passwords, and so on?
As a pioneer in ecommerce Amazon is a company that is based upon a disruptive innovation. Christenson et al argue that disruptive innovations are the key to sustained long-term growth. The challenge is for a profitable company, with all of its obligations to shareholders, customers and employees, to find a way to develop them.
References
Christenson, C.M.; Johnson, M.W.; Rigby, D.K. (2002). How to Identify and Build Disruptive New Businesses. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 22-31.
Levy, S. (2007, November 26). The Future of Reading. Newsweek. Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.newsweek.com/id/70983/page/1.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2007, November 21). Amazon’s New Book Reader Destined to Fail. The Googlization of Everything. Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/2007/11/amazons_new_book_reader_destin.php
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Reflection - Sandy Chan
Reflection – Sandy Chan
IMT 581 Blog- Ideas 4 Change
Having a course blog did not seem like a bad idea at the beginning. We have used many different tools to facilitate class or group discussions in other classes. To name a few, we have tried catalyst, google groups, and sharepoint sites. They all had their pros and cons. None of them were perfect but all of them performed fairly well as a platform to foster course-related discussions outside of the classroom. I was looking forward to have a course blog at the beginning of the quarter since I have never used blogs as a classroom tool before. However, this experience did not turned out well mainly because of the blog tool that we chosen to use—Blogger.com.
We are not the first ones using blogs as classroom tools. Some course blogs worked well because they weren’t used in a way that our course blog was. We have 24 students taking IMT581. Every student is required to post 5 reflections, 1 Fast Company comment, 1 book review, and 1 post to tell what book they want to write a book review on.. In addition, some students posted articles about successful or failure change management cases. That would be a total of 200+ posts over 10 weeks. In the ideal world, the blog would have 20+ posts per week, 3+ posts per day. In reality, the blog had 0 posts on some slow days and 8+ posts on busy days. I am expecting the blog to have more than 10 posts per day this week because the quarter is coming to an end and many students should have their last one or two reflections done by this week.
I started to realize the course blog was getting out of control in the first few weeks of class when the success/failure cases were posted to the blog. The blog tool that we chosen to use lacks many functions that could have been useful to the class, to name the top two:
(1) Categorize Posts: Currently, our instructor adds “reflection” or “book review” in each post’s title to differentiate the posts. However, there is no easy way to have a list of all of the book review posts or all of the reflection posts by one student. I would say this is the main problem of our course blog. Ironically, finding the best way to manage information is one of the main focuses of our MSIM program.
(2) Comments: The blog that we are using does not have a list of “most recent comments.” This is extremely inconvenient as we were asked to foster discussions on our own posts. To do this, we would have to find our post first (by searching our own name) and check if anyone has commented on our post. It would be nice if the blog had a list of most recent comments (this might get out of control since the blog is supposed to have a total of 120+ comments at least) or even better, send an email to the writer of the post when the post is being commented.
Although the blog did not work well, it was still an interesting experience to see how technology can be misused and think about ways to improve it. This being said, I am very curious if our course blog would have been different if we had chosen some other blog tools.
References:
Wikis and Blogs for the Classroom, Retrieved on November 27,2007 from http://www.englishonline.org.cn/zh-hant/teachers/network-news/hong-kong-elt-network/articles/wikis-and-blogs
Selingo, J (2004). “In the Classroom, Web Logs Are the New Bulletin Boards.” The New York Times. Aug 19, 2004. pg. G.7
Whyte, E (2006). “Of blogging and learning from blogs” New Strait Times. October 5, 2006, Study smart; LOCAL; Pg. 14
IMT 581 Blog- Ideas 4 Change
Having a course blog did not seem like a bad idea at the beginning. We have used many different tools to facilitate class or group discussions in other classes. To name a few, we have tried catalyst, google groups, and sharepoint sites. They all had their pros and cons. None of them were perfect but all of them performed fairly well as a platform to foster course-related discussions outside of the classroom. I was looking forward to have a course blog at the beginning of the quarter since I have never used blogs as a classroom tool before. However, this experience did not turned out well mainly because of the blog tool that we chosen to use—Blogger.com.
We are not the first ones using blogs as classroom tools. Some course blogs worked well because they weren’t used in a way that our course blog was. We have 24 students taking IMT581. Every student is required to post 5 reflections, 1 Fast Company comment, 1 book review, and 1 post to tell what book they want to write a book review on.. In addition, some students posted articles about successful or failure change management cases. That would be a total of 200+ posts over 10 weeks. In the ideal world, the blog would have 20+ posts per week, 3+ posts per day. In reality, the blog had 0 posts on some slow days and 8+ posts on busy days. I am expecting the blog to have more than 10 posts per day this week because the quarter is coming to an end and many students should have their last one or two reflections done by this week.
I started to realize the course blog was getting out of control in the first few weeks of class when the success/failure cases were posted to the blog. The blog tool that we chosen to use lacks many functions that could have been useful to the class, to name the top two:
(1) Categorize Posts: Currently, our instructor adds “reflection” or “book review” in each post’s title to differentiate the posts. However, there is no easy way to have a list of all of the book review posts or all of the reflection posts by one student. I would say this is the main problem of our course blog. Ironically, finding the best way to manage information is one of the main focuses of our MSIM program.
(2) Comments: The blog that we are using does not have a list of “most recent comments.” This is extremely inconvenient as we were asked to foster discussions on our own posts. To do this, we would have to find our post first (by searching our own name) and check if anyone has commented on our post. It would be nice if the blog had a list of most recent comments (this might get out of control since the blog is supposed to have a total of 120+ comments at least) or even better, send an email to the writer of the post when the post is being commented.
Although the blog did not work well, it was still an interesting experience to see how technology can be misused and think about ways to improve it. This being said, I am very curious if our course blog would have been different if we had chosen some other blog tools.
References:
Wikis and Blogs for the Classroom, Retrieved on November 27,2007 from http://www.englishonline.org.cn/zh-hant/teachers/network-news/hong-kong-elt-network/articles/wikis-and-blogs
Selingo, J (2004). “In the Classroom, Web Logs Are the New Bulletin Boards.” The New York Times. Aug 19, 2004. pg. G.7
Whyte, E (2006). “Of blogging and learning from blogs” New Strait Times. October 5, 2006, Study smart; LOCAL; Pg. 14
Reflection – Daylen Thane
Final Course Reflection
My final reflection is about what I have learned, liked, not liked in our current class, and ideas for future Change Management class taught by Kevin Desouza. I highly believe this class has been great. The level of engagement in which the instructor managed to involve us is amazing. I think great part of what made this class so well received by us is that Kevin is very passionate about change management issues. Furthermore, I have learned a lot through the readings and discussions of my classmates’ ideas.
I would like to start talking about our class’s blog. Even though I think it is a good idea to keep a blog as the central repository of knowledge, I was particularly bothered by the cumbersome system of trying to follow up with comments. I subscribed to the blog (RSS) so I would get updates on new posts, and that worked great; yet, following up with people’s comments was a real pain and very difficult. That only made it that I would not want to spend the time trying to find other’s comments. I would recommend using a class catalyst tool like we have had for other classes. That system worked really well before and you can see the comments as a new post instead of how we see them currently in the blog. Furthermore, I don’t know how “honestly” people would write about different change management issues since the blog is on the internet and anyone can read it. I see that it opens doors for us as well as the iSchool, but when we write (things that go on the blog), we now have to worry about the way our writing will be perceived by the internet community, as it can affect our professional career and future.
Another great addition to our class has been the CEO video case studies. These have been extremely fun to watch and analyze, and at the same time, they add content for class discussions and blog reflections. I really enjoy seeing my classmates discussing about what is the best curse of action and coming with new solutions; as well as watching the CEOs arrive with solutions we didn’t think of. The only thing about the video case studies I wasn’t 100% satisfied with was that they were about CEOs, and I feel that it will be a long time before any of us will become C-level managers. These videos give us great insight about what their jobs entail, but I would have also liked to see things I can use for entry level positions.
The books for class were very easy to follow while reading them. “The heart of Change” was extremely fun due to the many examples the authors use to demonstrate their suggestions. I really enjoyed seeing my classmates use the books as guidance when writing many of their reflections. The books used in the book reviews were extremely interesting as well. I was a bit surprised about doing a book review at the beginning of the class, but at the end, it worked out really well and I am very glad we had that assignment. Not only did I get to read a great book, but I was also able to learn a lot about other books without having to read them all from start to end.
Finally, Jill’s presentation of her independent study was just “icing on the cake”. It was extremely interesting seeing how change management can be represented by music metaphors such as the Jazz Metaphor. She was very engaging and fun, and we were all very much interested in her presentation.
In conclusion, I have learned quite a bit during this change management class. I think overall the class was really good, and I am quite positive that Kevin will be able to improve it even more after he incorporates our suggestions for the development of future classes.
My final reflection is about what I have learned, liked, not liked in our current class, and ideas for future Change Management class taught by Kevin Desouza. I highly believe this class has been great. The level of engagement in which the instructor managed to involve us is amazing. I think great part of what made this class so well received by us is that Kevin is very passionate about change management issues. Furthermore, I have learned a lot through the readings and discussions of my classmates’ ideas.
I would like to start talking about our class’s blog. Even though I think it is a good idea to keep a blog as the central repository of knowledge, I was particularly bothered by the cumbersome system of trying to follow up with comments. I subscribed to the blog (RSS) so I would get updates on new posts, and that worked great; yet, following up with people’s comments was a real pain and very difficult. That only made it that I would not want to spend the time trying to find other’s comments. I would recommend using a class catalyst tool like we have had for other classes. That system worked really well before and you can see the comments as a new post instead of how we see them currently in the blog. Furthermore, I don’t know how “honestly” people would write about different change management issues since the blog is on the internet and anyone can read it. I see that it opens doors for us as well as the iSchool, but when we write (things that go on the blog), we now have to worry about the way our writing will be perceived by the internet community, as it can affect our professional career and future.
Another great addition to our class has been the CEO video case studies. These have been extremely fun to watch and analyze, and at the same time, they add content for class discussions and blog reflections. I really enjoy seeing my classmates discussing about what is the best curse of action and coming with new solutions; as well as watching the CEOs arrive with solutions we didn’t think of. The only thing about the video case studies I wasn’t 100% satisfied with was that they were about CEOs, and I feel that it will be a long time before any of us will become C-level managers. These videos give us great insight about what their jobs entail, but I would have also liked to see things I can use for entry level positions.
The books for class were very easy to follow while reading them. “The heart of Change” was extremely fun due to the many examples the authors use to demonstrate their suggestions. I really enjoyed seeing my classmates use the books as guidance when writing many of their reflections. The books used in the book reviews were extremely interesting as well. I was a bit surprised about doing a book review at the beginning of the class, but at the end, it worked out really well and I am very glad we had that assignment. Not only did I get to read a great book, but I was also able to learn a lot about other books without having to read them all from start to end.
Finally, Jill’s presentation of her independent study was just “icing on the cake”. It was extremely interesting seeing how change management can be represented by music metaphors such as the Jazz Metaphor. She was very engaging and fun, and we were all very much interested in her presentation.
In conclusion, I have learned quite a bit during this change management class. I think overall the class was really good, and I am quite positive that Kevin will be able to improve it even more after he incorporates our suggestions for the development of future classes.
Reflection – Daylen Thane
Being a Leader
Throughout this quarter, we have studied and analyzed many case studies in where a leader (usually the CEO) has had to make a critical decision to correct an action that has been problematic for the daily functions of the organization. What’s really fun about analyzing the case studies is that we (as a class) try to come up with solutions, and when we see what the leaders did to solve it, we can rejoice if we “guessed” right.
There are many articles and publications dedicated to the leadership skills. However, I often wonder if “timing” has to do more with the success of the leaders than having these skills. Interesting enough, while Becca and I were giving our presentation on Jack Welch (for our research paper), Kevin asked a similar question: “Can Jack come into one of today’s big organizations and change them like he changed GE 20 years ago?” Stay tuned for our response to his question in the analysis part of our research paper.
As Information Management students, we are undoubtedly “being trained”, prepared, and “molded” into being leaders (at least in the Information field). We are acquiring great skills and knowledge that will most definitely help us in our professional career. However, sometimes I wonder how many of us will become unforgettable in the history of Information Management as leaders. If I ever have time for an independent study, I’d love to study in great details “what exactly makes great leaders”? Furthermore, I am interested in finding out if a person acquires all those skills (and follows their principles, methodology, and skills of these well-known leaders), can he/she become a leader of the same caliber?
Throughout many of our courses we have come across different ideas that may help us develop into good managers. We really appreciate when we get pragmatic recommendations we can use on our preparation to reach that goal. For example, our Change Management instructor gave us a list of strategies we can do now to prepare ourselves for future managerial career. This list consists of:
· Time Management skills
· Communication skills
· Planning strategies
· Decision-making skills (Long-term decisions vs. Short-term decisions)
· Networking
· Creating and Innovating strategies
· Sense-and-Respond skills
· Relaxation
Hopefully we’ll able to master most of these skills/strategies. I notice that most of them depend on our professional growth and our will, which makes them more realistic to conquer.
Dale Carnegie gives suggestions on part four of his book “How to Win Friends & Influence People” about being a leader. His recommendations are a complete different angle from what we have been hearing so far. They are more focused on the people’s skills (different ways to treat/react to our employees’ needs) needed to succeed at leading others. Dale says:
· “Be sincere. Do not promise anything that you cannot deliver. Forget about the benefits to yourself and concentrate on the benefits to the other person.
· Know exactly what it is you want the other person to do.
· Be empathetic. Ask yourself what it is the other person really wants.
· Consider the benefits that person will receive from doing what you suggest.
· Match those benefits to the other person’s wants.
· When you make your request, put it in a form that will convey to the other person the idea that he personally will benefit.”
I think being a leader takes a lot more than truly mastering all these skills. I think it takes time and experience as well. However, being aware of things we can do now to better our leading skills is definitely a plus, and we are really fortunate to possess this information.
References:
· How to Win Friends & Influence People. Dale Carnegie. New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1998. 288 pp. $14.00. (ISBN: 0-671-02703-4)
Throughout this quarter, we have studied and analyzed many case studies in where a leader (usually the CEO) has had to make a critical decision to correct an action that has been problematic for the daily functions of the organization. What’s really fun about analyzing the case studies is that we (as a class) try to come up with solutions, and when we see what the leaders did to solve it, we can rejoice if we “guessed” right.
There are many articles and publications dedicated to the leadership skills. However, I often wonder if “timing” has to do more with the success of the leaders than having these skills. Interesting enough, while Becca and I were giving our presentation on Jack Welch (for our research paper), Kevin asked a similar question: “Can Jack come into one of today’s big organizations and change them like he changed GE 20 years ago?” Stay tuned for our response to his question in the analysis part of our research paper.
As Information Management students, we are undoubtedly “being trained”, prepared, and “molded” into being leaders (at least in the Information field). We are acquiring great skills and knowledge that will most definitely help us in our professional career. However, sometimes I wonder how many of us will become unforgettable in the history of Information Management as leaders. If I ever have time for an independent study, I’d love to study in great details “what exactly makes great leaders”? Furthermore, I am interested in finding out if a person acquires all those skills (and follows their principles, methodology, and skills of these well-known leaders), can he/she become a leader of the same caliber?
Throughout many of our courses we have come across different ideas that may help us develop into good managers. We really appreciate when we get pragmatic recommendations we can use on our preparation to reach that goal. For example, our Change Management instructor gave us a list of strategies we can do now to prepare ourselves for future managerial career. This list consists of:
· Time Management skills
· Communication skills
· Planning strategies
· Decision-making skills (Long-term decisions vs. Short-term decisions)
· Networking
· Creating and Innovating strategies
· Sense-and-Respond skills
· Relaxation
Hopefully we’ll able to master most of these skills/strategies. I notice that most of them depend on our professional growth and our will, which makes them more realistic to conquer.
Dale Carnegie gives suggestions on part four of his book “How to Win Friends & Influence People” about being a leader. His recommendations are a complete different angle from what we have been hearing so far. They are more focused on the people’s skills (different ways to treat/react to our employees’ needs) needed to succeed at leading others. Dale says:
· “Be sincere. Do not promise anything that you cannot deliver. Forget about the benefits to yourself and concentrate on the benefits to the other person.
· Know exactly what it is you want the other person to do.
· Be empathetic. Ask yourself what it is the other person really wants.
· Consider the benefits that person will receive from doing what you suggest.
· Match those benefits to the other person’s wants.
· When you make your request, put it in a form that will convey to the other person the idea that he personally will benefit.”
I think being a leader takes a lot more than truly mastering all these skills. I think it takes time and experience as well. However, being aware of things we can do now to better our leading skills is definitely a plus, and we are really fortunate to possess this information.
References:
· How to Win Friends & Influence People. Dale Carnegie. New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1998. 288 pp. $14.00. (ISBN: 0-671-02703-4)
Reflection - Daylen Thane
Innovation: Your friend, but can it backstab you?
Most humans really enjoy being comfortable. I say most because you have the occasional risk taker that loves to sleep in the woods while mountaineering Mt. Rainier, or the one who enjoys the adrenaline rush of jumping off a plane during a skydiving session. However, how does being comfortable relate to organizations? Can they truly reach a stage of conformability and stop innovating? When does innovating reaches its threshold and backfires on your organization?
It seems to me that the clear and obvious answer is that being comfortable (aka. “stop innovating”) is not necessarily a good thing because it stops the growth and change in the organization and let other companies get ahead. Look at Yahoo and AOL for example, they had control of the search engines for years, then “along came Google”, and took it all! I strongly believe that these companies got comfortable with their product and stopped innovating, until a major competitor appeared and they “got back to work”. However, most likely there were other issues at hand that caused their lost of market shares.
There are multiple examples in which companies have lost market share due to “lack of innovation”. For example, Intel lost to AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) because the latter did a better job (price including at the time of release) with 64 bits processors (even though Intel is now winning with the core 2 duo)1, Sony lost market shares to the music-God Apple (with the iPod), and Gmail taking over the webmails (“GMail is really the leader of webmail”2) over Hotmail, Yahoo, and AOL email services is just another example of many.
Competition has a lot to do with keeping evolving organizations busy, working, and constantly innovating. For example, in communist countries, the government “owns” everything, organizations included. Thus, companies have no reason to thrive and innovate, and everything is in a stale stage. Luckily enough, USA is a capitalist country where competition drives innovation, and this is why our technology and society is so much more advanced here. There are other factors (such as economic factors) that influence this whole concept, but they will be examined another time.
Furthermore, we were talking in class about how companies never reach a constant and steady innovating stage. They almost never follow this pattern:
Instead, they follow a much diverse and ever changing pattern, going up and down in innovation as time goes by. In class, we came up with different causes that keep companies from following the above mentioned pattern. Some of these are: Legal, Government, Market, Social, Shareholders/Stakeholders, and innovating so much that your product/services become un-needed. I think this last one was the most interesting because it is a factor that the company has total control over it. Yet, there are many organizations that have innovated themselves out of business. Like our instructor said: has anyone seen a Betamax (video tape format) around lately?
In conclusion, successful organizations need to stay in the lookout for constant innovation if they want to stay afloat this ever-changing technology world. Staleness is just not allowed because the price is too high to pay.
References:
Extreme Tech: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1860533,00.asp
Rev2.org: http://www.rev2.org/2006/02/12/gmail-vs-windows-live-the-arguement/
Most humans really enjoy being comfortable. I say most because you have the occasional risk taker that loves to sleep in the woods while mountaineering Mt. Rainier, or the one who enjoys the adrenaline rush of jumping off a plane during a skydiving session. However, how does being comfortable relate to organizations? Can they truly reach a stage of conformability and stop innovating? When does innovating reaches its threshold and backfires on your organization?
It seems to me that the clear and obvious answer is that being comfortable (aka. “stop innovating”) is not necessarily a good thing because it stops the growth and change in the organization and let other companies get ahead. Look at Yahoo and AOL for example, they had control of the search engines for years, then “along came Google”, and took it all! I strongly believe that these companies got comfortable with their product and stopped innovating, until a major competitor appeared and they “got back to work”. However, most likely there were other issues at hand that caused their lost of market shares.
There are multiple examples in which companies have lost market share due to “lack of innovation”. For example, Intel lost to AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) because the latter did a better job (price including at the time of release) with 64 bits processors (even though Intel is now winning with the core 2 duo)1, Sony lost market shares to the music-God Apple (with the iPod), and Gmail taking over the webmails (“GMail is really the leader of webmail”2) over Hotmail, Yahoo, and AOL email services is just another example of many.
Competition has a lot to do with keeping evolving organizations busy, working, and constantly innovating. For example, in communist countries, the government “owns” everything, organizations included. Thus, companies have no reason to thrive and innovate, and everything is in a stale stage. Luckily enough, USA is a capitalist country where competition drives innovation, and this is why our technology and society is so much more advanced here. There are other factors (such as economic factors) that influence this whole concept, but they will be examined another time.
Furthermore, we were talking in class about how companies never reach a constant and steady innovating stage. They almost never follow this pattern:
Instead, they follow a much diverse and ever changing pattern, going up and down in innovation as time goes by. In class, we came up with different causes that keep companies from following the above mentioned pattern. Some of these are: Legal, Government, Market, Social, Shareholders/Stakeholders, and innovating so much that your product/services become un-needed. I think this last one was the most interesting because it is a factor that the company has total control over it. Yet, there are many organizations that have innovated themselves out of business. Like our instructor said: has anyone seen a Betamax (video tape format) around lately?
In conclusion, successful organizations need to stay in the lookout for constant innovation if they want to stay afloat this ever-changing technology world. Staleness is just not allowed because the price is too high to pay.
References:
Extreme Tech: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1860533,00.asp
Rev2.org: http://www.rev2.org/2006/02/12/gmail-vs-windows-live-the-arguement/
Reflection - Daylen Thane
Keep the old or hire the new?
Traditionally, organizations that are considered evolving and agile have placed heavy emphasis on retaining long-term employees in an effort to retain their tacit knowledge assets. This has become accepted, but is it right? In the world of Information Organizations, what is more beneficial for companies: to hire new employees or to keep the veterans around? What is our job as Information Managers when it comes to making decisions regarding the staff with seniority (i.e., to keep them around or to hire new employees).
Hiring and training new employees is extremely expensive for companies. The cost of turnover rate can reach 150% of the employees' annual compensation figure.1 Hiring and training new employees takes a lot of time from the management staff, occupies advertising and interviewing resources, and it causes productivity loses to the company. Up to the first year, the cost of new employees outweighs the benefits of hiring them. The cost of hiring new employees equals to “Employee Cost” (Annual Base Salary + Benefits Cost (estimated at 30% of base salary)) + “Loss of Productivity from Other Employees Filling in for Vacant Position” + Cost to Hire (HR/Manager hours spent on looking for an applicant, writing job description, and interviewing, etc.) + “Training Cost” + “Days to Productivity” (Time required for the new hire to reach 100% Productivity) – “Salary Savings” (Amount of unpaid salary and benefits during position vacancy).2
Although hiring and training new employees can be expensive, paying veterans’ salaries is also very costly for organizations. Veterans’ salaries are usually high due to the years of experience and expertise they possess and to the years of hard work spent at the company. For example, as a certified Medical Technologist (MedTech) I got paid up to $15/hour less than MedTechs who have worked at the company for 15 years. However, I perform exactly the same tests as the other more experienced MedTechs, work exactly the same number of hours, and have the same responsibilities. If only salary (and cost of benefits) is taken into account, one would think that it is in my company’s best interest to recycle MedTechs every couple of years.
Because managers spend a lot of time destroying employees’ old habits to create innovation, many organizations believe that a solution to this is to hire new people with new ideas. I believe this is true. But, I also believe that it is the manager’s duty to produce incentives so that current employees create fresh and innovating ideas. Managers can send veteran employees to conferences and courses so that they stay on top of their technological skills, learn about exciting and new technologies, and come back with fresh ideas. However, the best incentive employees can have to produce innovating products is for them to be happy at work and with the project they are working on. Diego Rodriguez, from Business Week, says, “The perfect work assignment for someone who needs to be innovative is one that balances clear, achievable goals with just enough task challenge to ignite the fires of creativity that lies within all of us.”3 He also mentions that personal happiness is the solution to creativity and innovation. “Help happiness bloom [at the work place], and innovative behavior will follow.”3 Interesting enough, we were discussing this exact same topic in my project management class; our instructor was informing us of a research study in which different project managers and team members were surveyed regarding important factors for them at the workplace. Most of the interviewees agreed that being content at work, and having a challenging, friendly, and nice work environment was what kept them coming back to work everyday.
Veterans have many good qualities. One of them, which I consider extremely important, is loyalty. Organizations need loyal employees to keep the company’s culture fun; these employees are usually very excited about what they do. Loyalty means giving to the organization for more than money. It means working at this company because you really care and appreciate what you do. Loyalty is a quality that is only acquired with time, and new employees will most likely lack of it.
Experience and tacit knowledge are great qualities of veterans that cannot be passed on to new employees. Experience is acquired by years spent working in the field. Tacit knowledge is the knowledge only known to the employee, and it is hard to share; when this employee leaves the organization, this knowledge is lost as well.4
In conclusion, Information Technology (as well as others) Organizations should (and I am positive most of them do this already) weight the risks and benefits or hiring new employees versus keeping the veterans. The benefits of hiring new employees include fresh and innovating ideas, creativeness, and savings from lower salaries. The benefits of keeping veteran employees include savings from the cost of hiring and training new employees, the veterans’ loyalty, experience, expertise, and tacit knowledge.
References:
Bliss & Associates Inc. “Cost of Turnover”. http://www.blissassociates.com/html/articles/cost_of_turnover15.html
Caliper. “Cost of Employee Turnover Calculator” http://www.caliperonline.com/solutions/turnover.shtml
Diego Rodriguez. “Happiness in the Art of Innovation” http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/mar2006/id20060306_579621.htm?chan=search
Selamat, M.H. & J. Choudrie. (2004). The diffusion of tacit knowledge and its implications on information systems: The role of meta-abilities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 128-139.
Traditionally, organizations that are considered evolving and agile have placed heavy emphasis on retaining long-term employees in an effort to retain their tacit knowledge assets. This has become accepted, but is it right? In the world of Information Organizations, what is more beneficial for companies: to hire new employees or to keep the veterans around? What is our job as Information Managers when it comes to making decisions regarding the staff with seniority (i.e., to keep them around or to hire new employees).
Hiring and training new employees is extremely expensive for companies. The cost of turnover rate can reach 150% of the employees' annual compensation figure.1 Hiring and training new employees takes a lot of time from the management staff, occupies advertising and interviewing resources, and it causes productivity loses to the company. Up to the first year, the cost of new employees outweighs the benefits of hiring them. The cost of hiring new employees equals to “Employee Cost” (Annual Base Salary + Benefits Cost (estimated at 30% of base salary)) + “Loss of Productivity from Other Employees Filling in for Vacant Position” + Cost to Hire (HR/Manager hours spent on looking for an applicant, writing job description, and interviewing, etc.) + “Training Cost” + “Days to Productivity” (Time required for the new hire to reach 100% Productivity) – “Salary Savings” (Amount of unpaid salary and benefits during position vacancy).2
Although hiring and training new employees can be expensive, paying veterans’ salaries is also very costly for organizations. Veterans’ salaries are usually high due to the years of experience and expertise they possess and to the years of hard work spent at the company. For example, as a certified Medical Technologist (MedTech) I got paid up to $15/hour less than MedTechs who have worked at the company for 15 years. However, I perform exactly the same tests as the other more experienced MedTechs, work exactly the same number of hours, and have the same responsibilities. If only salary (and cost of benefits) is taken into account, one would think that it is in my company’s best interest to recycle MedTechs every couple of years.
Because managers spend a lot of time destroying employees’ old habits to create innovation, many organizations believe that a solution to this is to hire new people with new ideas. I believe this is true. But, I also believe that it is the manager’s duty to produce incentives so that current employees create fresh and innovating ideas. Managers can send veteran employees to conferences and courses so that they stay on top of their technological skills, learn about exciting and new technologies, and come back with fresh ideas. However, the best incentive employees can have to produce innovating products is for them to be happy at work and with the project they are working on. Diego Rodriguez, from Business Week, says, “The perfect work assignment for someone who needs to be innovative is one that balances clear, achievable goals with just enough task challenge to ignite the fires of creativity that lies within all of us.”3 He also mentions that personal happiness is the solution to creativity and innovation. “Help happiness bloom [at the work place], and innovative behavior will follow.”3 Interesting enough, we were discussing this exact same topic in my project management class; our instructor was informing us of a research study in which different project managers and team members were surveyed regarding important factors for them at the workplace. Most of the interviewees agreed that being content at work, and having a challenging, friendly, and nice work environment was what kept them coming back to work everyday.
Veterans have many good qualities. One of them, which I consider extremely important, is loyalty. Organizations need loyal employees to keep the company’s culture fun; these employees are usually very excited about what they do. Loyalty means giving to the organization for more than money. It means working at this company because you really care and appreciate what you do. Loyalty is a quality that is only acquired with time, and new employees will most likely lack of it.
Experience and tacit knowledge are great qualities of veterans that cannot be passed on to new employees. Experience is acquired by years spent working in the field. Tacit knowledge is the knowledge only known to the employee, and it is hard to share; when this employee leaves the organization, this knowledge is lost as well.4
In conclusion, Information Technology (as well as others) Organizations should (and I am positive most of them do this already) weight the risks and benefits or hiring new employees versus keeping the veterans. The benefits of hiring new employees include fresh and innovating ideas, creativeness, and savings from lower salaries. The benefits of keeping veteran employees include savings from the cost of hiring and training new employees, the veterans’ loyalty, experience, expertise, and tacit knowledge.
References:
Bliss & Associates Inc. “Cost of Turnover”. http://www.blissassociates.com/html/articles/cost_of_turnover15.html
Caliper. “Cost of Employee Turnover Calculator” http://www.caliperonline.com/solutions/turnover.shtml
Diego Rodriguez. “Happiness in the Art of Innovation” http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/mar2006/id20060306_579621.htm?chan=search
Selamat, M.H. & J. Choudrie. (2004). The diffusion of tacit knowledge and its implications on information systems: The role of meta-abilities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 128-139.
Reflection - Jun Shao
You have to find you own way to Roma in change management
Today Jill presented a creative idea of change management, using Jazz metaphor to associate organization changing. The traditional model of Benny Goodman and the complex adaptive system (CAS) model of Count Basie are proved to be successful. It seems that all roads lead to Roma. However, I am a little confused that why we still have problems in change management. Why organizations still have the so-called changing pains nowadays?
I totally agree that jazz organizations can be described as business with management. They have products, customers, investors, managers, and employees. However, despite similarities, we might not neglect their differences and explore those differences to see how they influence change management. Therefore we can draw a solid conclusion of change management.
Organization difference
The first glance is that a jazz band is much simple than a business organization.
· Scale of employees
A band does not exceed 100 people while Philips has 128,000 employees. Large international companies usually have over tens of thousands employees.
· Geographic distribution
A band members play on a single stage even when they travel across the United States. Philips has over 100 sites all around the world. The distribution has some unavoidable problems in management. A well-known issue is the time-zone one. As Jill mentioned, she has to wake up before 5 a.m. to have a conference meeting with her German colleagues every week.
· Organization Complexity
Jill told us that the Seattle team and the German team are quite difference in the way they manage changes. Different organization structures, processes, and customs. While in a single Jazz band, even its musicians come from other countries, the members still share a same organization and way they play Jazz.
A great number of business organizations have a problem in communication. That’s why we have to develop a vision and communicate the change vision in Kotter’s eight stage change process. Considering the scale of employees, geographic distribution, and organization complexity, Jazz bands have those great advantages over business organizations in change management which contributes to their success of metaphors However, some large organizations might have problem in applying changes due to the mentioned disadvantages.
Jill’s idea is practical since we can apply changes to a limited scope. Changes are always divided into phases based on their timelines and teams based on their functions. Therefore, we will explore their change contexts and their interactions to check Jazz metaphors and business changes.
Context difference
· Customer
The audience of Jazz is their customers. They have already bought tickets before they listen to the music. Also, because they like Jazz, they pay for it. In the business organization cases, customers buy products or services out of diverse purposes. Some band funs, such as luxuries, might have the same feeling of those Jazz fans. However, some customers might have high expectations. They have little tolerance of mistakes of business organizations and ask for refund if they do not like changes of products.
· Competition
When driving on the road, you can switch to different type of Jazz music in hours. Your can buy a lot of Jazz music products at the same day. However, in most cases, you will like to drive a same car for years. Business organizations have to face much more intense competitions since most of products are more exclusive than music.
· External environment
The environment of Jazz is stable while business organizations, especially today, have to face a fast paced global market. The preferences of Jazz audience will not change greatly. Also, they are little restriction of Jazz and musicians are quite pleased to satisfy customers. They play freely on stages. As we know, the first priority of business organizations is to pursuit profit. However, there are lots of restrictions such as law, custom, and culture. They have to dance in cages.
Overall, we have checked the contexts of Jazz metaphor and business organization changes. Jill’s idea can apply to some cases. However, they have to rely on their contexts. In the following paragraph, I would like to explore change themselves.
Change difference
As Jill describe, when performing in public, jazz musicians often exhibit a great freedom that gives the impression of the ability to change successfully take up new ideas at the moment’s notice. Musicians drive changes, not to adopt it. While in the business cases, organization changes to adopt it. Despite great freedom during their performance, the Jazz musicians can get the immediate feedback from their audience. Well, business organizations have to pay for surveying and collection customer feedback.
Conclusion
In all, Jill’s idea is practical as to change management based on certain conditions. The nature of change is its diversity. Facing its diversity, we have to find our specified solution. We are exploring our own way to Roma.
Today Jill presented a creative idea of change management, using Jazz metaphor to associate organization changing. The traditional model of Benny Goodman and the complex adaptive system (CAS) model of Count Basie are proved to be successful. It seems that all roads lead to Roma. However, I am a little confused that why we still have problems in change management. Why organizations still have the so-called changing pains nowadays?
I totally agree that jazz organizations can be described as business with management. They have products, customers, investors, managers, and employees. However, despite similarities, we might not neglect their differences and explore those differences to see how they influence change management. Therefore we can draw a solid conclusion of change management.
Organization difference
The first glance is that a jazz band is much simple than a business organization.
· Scale of employees
A band does not exceed 100 people while Philips has 128,000 employees. Large international companies usually have over tens of thousands employees.
· Geographic distribution
A band members play on a single stage even when they travel across the United States. Philips has over 100 sites all around the world. The distribution has some unavoidable problems in management. A well-known issue is the time-zone one. As Jill mentioned, she has to wake up before 5 a.m. to have a conference meeting with her German colleagues every week.
· Organization Complexity
Jill told us that the Seattle team and the German team are quite difference in the way they manage changes. Different organization structures, processes, and customs. While in a single Jazz band, even its musicians come from other countries, the members still share a same organization and way they play Jazz.
A great number of business organizations have a problem in communication. That’s why we have to develop a vision and communicate the change vision in Kotter’s eight stage change process. Considering the scale of employees, geographic distribution, and organization complexity, Jazz bands have those great advantages over business organizations in change management which contributes to their success of metaphors However, some large organizations might have problem in applying changes due to the mentioned disadvantages.
Jill’s idea is practical since we can apply changes to a limited scope. Changes are always divided into phases based on their timelines and teams based on their functions. Therefore, we will explore their change contexts and their interactions to check Jazz metaphors and business changes.
Context difference
· Customer
The audience of Jazz is their customers. They have already bought tickets before they listen to the music. Also, because they like Jazz, they pay for it. In the business organization cases, customers buy products or services out of diverse purposes. Some band funs, such as luxuries, might have the same feeling of those Jazz fans. However, some customers might have high expectations. They have little tolerance of mistakes of business organizations and ask for refund if they do not like changes of products.
· Competition
When driving on the road, you can switch to different type of Jazz music in hours. Your can buy a lot of Jazz music products at the same day. However, in most cases, you will like to drive a same car for years. Business organizations have to face much more intense competitions since most of products are more exclusive than music.
· External environment
The environment of Jazz is stable while business organizations, especially today, have to face a fast paced global market. The preferences of Jazz audience will not change greatly. Also, they are little restriction of Jazz and musicians are quite pleased to satisfy customers. They play freely on stages. As we know, the first priority of business organizations is to pursuit profit. However, there are lots of restrictions such as law, custom, and culture. They have to dance in cages.
Overall, we have checked the contexts of Jazz metaphor and business organization changes. Jill’s idea can apply to some cases. However, they have to rely on their contexts. In the following paragraph, I would like to explore change themselves.
Change difference
As Jill describe, when performing in public, jazz musicians often exhibit a great freedom that gives the impression of the ability to change successfully take up new ideas at the moment’s notice. Musicians drive changes, not to adopt it. While in the business cases, organization changes to adopt it. Despite great freedom during their performance, the Jazz musicians can get the immediate feedback from their audience. Well, business organizations have to pay for surveying and collection customer feedback.
Conclusion
In all, Jill’s idea is practical as to change management based on certain conditions. The nature of change is its diversity. Facing its diversity, we have to find our specified solution. We are exploring our own way to Roma.
Reflection - Jun Shao
Evaluate employees within organizations
Right vision of human source change management
Sometimes managers face a problem that they have genius employees who do not work well with others. It will be a dilemma that either they have to fire the employees or they dissatisfy others. The smart manager mentioned in the video got the reputation of abrasive demanding. He was fired since he embarrassed a colleague who was just unprepared for his presentation during a meeting and refused to change his behavior. The CEO made the right decision. We often evaluate a person based on his individual capabilities. While in business organizations, we might check a person’s value in different perspectives to achieve a solid solution of the issue. I would like to explore the problem in the following perspectives.
Corporation
We are in a highly corporate world. One single person can not fulfill his or her job independently, no matter how talented he or she is. Even the basketball superstar Michael Jordan had to play in the Chicago Bulls and he could not fight against the Utah Jazz in the NBA finals on his own. People have to rely on others. Negative behaviors, such as embarrassing other in the public, will finally ruin the foundation of cooperation with those people who had been embarrassed.
Organization
A single “toxic” or negative team member can be the catalyst for downward spirals in organizations. In the video several people who worked with the manager left the company which resulted in high cost of hiring new employees and they had to take time to take over the previous manager’s job. Besides quitting, common defensive mechanisms employees use to cope with those negative people include denial, social withdrawal, anger, anxiety and fear. Trust in the team deteriorates and as the group loses its positive culture, members physically and psychologically disengage themselves from the team.
It was even worse that good behavior and positive team members are overweighed by negative people and their behavior. People do not expect negative events and behaviors, so when we see them we pay attention to them, ruminate over them and generally attempt to marshal all our resources to cope with the negativity in some way, good behavior is not put into the spotlight as much as negative behavior is.
Negative people become pains of organizations. However, is simple firing practical in handling this problem?
Change management
As the video show, the CEO gave the manager chance to change his behavior. Most organizations do not have very effective ways to handle the problem. This is especially true when the problem employee has longevity, experience or power. The CEO also mentioned the manager is a smart guy that he had even met.
As mentioned at the very beginning, managers have to make balance of person craft and team satisfactory. To fire an employee with great skills and find a person who can replace him or her is time-consuming. However, compared to the organization performance, I have to say that an employee is of much less value. Companies need to move quickly to deal with such problems because the negativity of just one individual is pervasive and destructive and can spread quickly.
In all, we might change the vision from individual to organization in handling this problem. Managers made different decision of changes based on their different visions of the problem. Sometimes, if the first priority of a manager is to get work done, he or she will not take the risk to fire negative people with great skills. Unfortunately, the decision is always proved to ruin the organization in a long run.
However, even when we have the right vision, it is still painful to fire those negative people. Those guys left unfriendly atmosphere. Also, it is time consuming to find another people to take over negative people’s job. Managers at companies, particularly those in which employees often work in teams, should take special care when hiring new employees, including checking references and administering personality tests so that potential negative people are screened out.
Conclusion
Right vision is much important in change management. Some dilemmas finally turn out to be caused by wrong visions. The right ones contribute to right decisions.
Right vision of human source change management
Sometimes managers face a problem that they have genius employees who do not work well with others. It will be a dilemma that either they have to fire the employees or they dissatisfy others. The smart manager mentioned in the video got the reputation of abrasive demanding. He was fired since he embarrassed a colleague who was just unprepared for his presentation during a meeting and refused to change his behavior. The CEO made the right decision. We often evaluate a person based on his individual capabilities. While in business organizations, we might check a person’s value in different perspectives to achieve a solid solution of the issue. I would like to explore the problem in the following perspectives.
Corporation
We are in a highly corporate world. One single person can not fulfill his or her job independently, no matter how talented he or she is. Even the basketball superstar Michael Jordan had to play in the Chicago Bulls and he could not fight against the Utah Jazz in the NBA finals on his own. People have to rely on others. Negative behaviors, such as embarrassing other in the public, will finally ruin the foundation of cooperation with those people who had been embarrassed.
Organization
A single “toxic” or negative team member can be the catalyst for downward spirals in organizations. In the video several people who worked with the manager left the company which resulted in high cost of hiring new employees and they had to take time to take over the previous manager’s job. Besides quitting, common defensive mechanisms employees use to cope with those negative people include denial, social withdrawal, anger, anxiety and fear. Trust in the team deteriorates and as the group loses its positive culture, members physically and psychologically disengage themselves from the team.
It was even worse that good behavior and positive team members are overweighed by negative people and their behavior. People do not expect negative events and behaviors, so when we see them we pay attention to them, ruminate over them and generally attempt to marshal all our resources to cope with the negativity in some way, good behavior is not put into the spotlight as much as negative behavior is.
Negative people become pains of organizations. However, is simple firing practical in handling this problem?
Change management
As the video show, the CEO gave the manager chance to change his behavior. Most organizations do not have very effective ways to handle the problem. This is especially true when the problem employee has longevity, experience or power. The CEO also mentioned the manager is a smart guy that he had even met.
As mentioned at the very beginning, managers have to make balance of person craft and team satisfactory. To fire an employee with great skills and find a person who can replace him or her is time-consuming. However, compared to the organization performance, I have to say that an employee is of much less value. Companies need to move quickly to deal with such problems because the negativity of just one individual is pervasive and destructive and can spread quickly.
In all, we might change the vision from individual to organization in handling this problem. Managers made different decision of changes based on their different visions of the problem. Sometimes, if the first priority of a manager is to get work done, he or she will not take the risk to fire negative people with great skills. Unfortunately, the decision is always proved to ruin the organization in a long run.
However, even when we have the right vision, it is still painful to fire those negative people. Those guys left unfriendly atmosphere. Also, it is time consuming to find another people to take over negative people’s job. Managers at companies, particularly those in which employees often work in teams, should take special care when hiring new employees, including checking references and administering personality tests so that potential negative people are screened out.
Conclusion
Right vision is much important in change management. Some dilemmas finally turn out to be caused by wrong visions. The right ones contribute to right decisions.
Reflection - Gints Salaks
Management of Change in Politics
Politics, politics, politics. In my opinion it is one of the most agile professions in the world and I will explain why I think so. In this paper I will focus again on the current political situation in the Republic of Latvia and how it has driven me to conclude that management of change has never left or ever will politics.
But first thing first, Latvia is a democratic republic that first gained independence in 1918 but lost it again in 1941. It finally regained its independence in 1991, so the idea of democratic politics is relatively new concept. So if we assume that the oldest politician was born in 1930, by now he would be 77 years old and will not have seen or experienced any first wave of democratic ideas. All of today’s politicians have been raised during the Soviet times when the main idea was to gain personal well being while one is at the helm of power. During this era, corruption was commonly accepted and the idea prevailed that one can pay for anything. Which concludes that today’s politician would inherit this characteristic in leading Latvia today. But..
There is only one problem. To get to the desired chair, one needs to convince the people that he or she is best suited for the desired position. It takes time for the politician to investigate what the needs of people are and he strikes where he sees is good chance of getting more votes. For example, many times the politicians, before election begins, state that they will raise salaries for teachers, nurses, retirees, and so on, but how many times does it really happen? One of the biggest promises three - four years ago in Latvia was to lower the income tax. It was believed that by doing it, people’s well being and purchase power would increase. Today, the same politician who promised that, says that it would not be advised to lower tax if we want to increase teachers and doctors salaries. So as you can see, they are very agile and smart on dealing with these delicate issues. I believe that in politics being agile or being a liar have many similarities and many politicians draw a thin line between those two.
Six weeks ago, Latvia was in so called political crisis because the prime minister was ready to fire the general who was in charge of anti-corrupt police force. The issue came when in Latvian constitution it states that the prime minister doesn’t have such rights. Many people went out in streets to protest against this vote and corruption in government and how the parliament and leading parties are so corrupt that they want to overthrow the only control instrument which prevents the corruption in the government. After loud debates, the general was reinstated in his position, but the prime minister has lost his trust in the people’s eyes. As the result, he acknowledged that he will step down. But it is not over yet. Couple weeks later, he said that he doesn’t feel guilty and might not step down. He says that he needs to accept the next year’s budget with currently elected ministers. What is the reason behind that? Well, most of the department ministers are from the same party as the prime minister, as the result, he has some control over the budget. And budget plays big role determining people’s salaries and more.
As you might see, the politics get very agile to politicians when one gets the desired seat. Maybe in more democratic countries, it is ethical to step down if you see that you have made a mistake and that the people of one’s country protest against you. But, also even in democratic countries such as the United States, we have seen examples of how political chair grants you the rights to be more flexible. For example, when Dick Cheney shot his hunting buddy, he didn’t acknowledge his mistake immediately, but just after some time (CNN). Another example is how George Bush has many times changed his view how he sees the progress of the war in Iraq. Even the current presidential candidates change what they claim they support to appeal to the voters. For example, many of today’s current candidates criticize the Patriot’s Act even though they voted in favor of it in the past. So the agility or lying in politics, regardless of political party, walks a thin line there. Politicians always find an excuse and a “good” reason why not or to do what they have decided on.
Politics, politics, politics. In my opinion it is one of the most agile professions in the world and I will explain why I think so. In this paper I will focus again on the current political situation in the Republic of Latvia and how it has driven me to conclude that management of change has never left or ever will politics.
But first thing first, Latvia is a democratic republic that first gained independence in 1918 but lost it again in 1941. It finally regained its independence in 1991, so the idea of democratic politics is relatively new concept. So if we assume that the oldest politician was born in 1930, by now he would be 77 years old and will not have seen or experienced any first wave of democratic ideas. All of today’s politicians have been raised during the Soviet times when the main idea was to gain personal well being while one is at the helm of power. During this era, corruption was commonly accepted and the idea prevailed that one can pay for anything. Which concludes that today’s politician would inherit this characteristic in leading Latvia today. But..
There is only one problem. To get to the desired chair, one needs to convince the people that he or she is best suited for the desired position. It takes time for the politician to investigate what the needs of people are and he strikes where he sees is good chance of getting more votes. For example, many times the politicians, before election begins, state that they will raise salaries for teachers, nurses, retirees, and so on, but how many times does it really happen? One of the biggest promises three - four years ago in Latvia was to lower the income tax. It was believed that by doing it, people’s well being and purchase power would increase. Today, the same politician who promised that, says that it would not be advised to lower tax if we want to increase teachers and doctors salaries. So as you can see, they are very agile and smart on dealing with these delicate issues. I believe that in politics being agile or being a liar have many similarities and many politicians draw a thin line between those two.
Six weeks ago, Latvia was in so called political crisis because the prime minister was ready to fire the general who was in charge of anti-corrupt police force. The issue came when in Latvian constitution it states that the prime minister doesn’t have such rights. Many people went out in streets to protest against this vote and corruption in government and how the parliament and leading parties are so corrupt that they want to overthrow the only control instrument which prevents the corruption in the government. After loud debates, the general was reinstated in his position, but the prime minister has lost his trust in the people’s eyes. As the result, he acknowledged that he will step down. But it is not over yet. Couple weeks later, he said that he doesn’t feel guilty and might not step down. He says that he needs to accept the next year’s budget with currently elected ministers. What is the reason behind that? Well, most of the department ministers are from the same party as the prime minister, as the result, he has some control over the budget. And budget plays big role determining people’s salaries and more.
As you might see, the politics get very agile to politicians when one gets the desired seat. Maybe in more democratic countries, it is ethical to step down if you see that you have made a mistake and that the people of one’s country protest against you. But, also even in democratic countries such as the United States, we have seen examples of how political chair grants you the rights to be more flexible. For example, when Dick Cheney shot his hunting buddy, he didn’t acknowledge his mistake immediately, but just after some time (CNN). Another example is how George Bush has many times changed his view how he sees the progress of the war in Iraq. Even the current presidential candidates change what they claim they support to appeal to the voters. For example, many of today’s current candidates criticize the Patriot’s Act even though they voted in favor of it in the past. So the agility or lying in politics, regardless of political party, walks a thin line there. Politicians always find an excuse and a “good” reason why not or to do what they have decided on.
Reflection - Lokesh Ramani
About Case Studies and Potential Future Additions
Over the last 10 weeks, this class has been enlightening with respect to theories, concepts, models and real-life situations about how to face change and implement change mechanisms effectively and efficiently. Apart from the assigned readings, the most important source of real-life challenges faced in organizations by business leaders have been the weekly video case studies selected by our professor. These video case studies were highly insightful, equipping the students with common challenges faced by executives and facilitating the students to voice their perspectives, strategies, solutions to tackle such challenges and comparing the students’ insights with the real solutions and strategies adopted by such business executives.
Analyzing the content and challenges presented through these video case studies, a pattern seem to emerge about all the issues we discussed about. The “human factor” was the critical component that could be drawn from most of the challenges faced by the business executives, and also the respective strategies to tackle them. Further, it appeared to me that common sense coupled with pertinent business experience may be sufficient to tackle these issues. I don’t mean to undermine the nature and complexity of such challenges, rather trying to look at the big picture needed to address emerging business issues and I am sure implementing an approach aided by common sense is definitely an effective and efficient mechanism.
In addition to the aforementioned cases, I would like to see the class deal with challenges, solutions and business frameworks related (not limited) to the below mentioned.
· Estimating Market Sizes
· Entering New Markets
· Mergers and Acquisitions
· Falling Profits
· New Product Introductions
These aforementioned problems are prevalent in higher management circles and it would be engaging to analyze and solve such cases, implementing critical business and management concepts ranging from marketing, accounting, strategy, etc. Further, cases associated with such domains facilitate reasoning that links specific management functions and the pertinent dependencies and relationships between each and how to use such dependencies to form solutions.
Further, solving such cases require some established business frameworks like the Porter’s 5 forces, the 3 C’s, SWOT analysis, etc which are everyday business tools used by management consultants to approach similar business issues. Experience and knowledge about such business cases and mechanisms to solve them would be extremely handy for students when similar topics and issues may be critical components for future assignments.
A number of interactive case-studies and solutions related to the aforementioned can be found in the following sources
1.) http://www.bain.com/bainweb/Join_Bain/case_interviews.asp
2.) http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/how_do_i_apply/how_to_do_well_in_the_interview/case_interview.aspx
Over the last 10 weeks, this class has been enlightening with respect to theories, concepts, models and real-life situations about how to face change and implement change mechanisms effectively and efficiently. Apart from the assigned readings, the most important source of real-life challenges faced in organizations by business leaders have been the weekly video case studies selected by our professor. These video case studies were highly insightful, equipping the students with common challenges faced by executives and facilitating the students to voice their perspectives, strategies, solutions to tackle such challenges and comparing the students’ insights with the real solutions and strategies adopted by such business executives.
Analyzing the content and challenges presented through these video case studies, a pattern seem to emerge about all the issues we discussed about. The “human factor” was the critical component that could be drawn from most of the challenges faced by the business executives, and also the respective strategies to tackle them. Further, it appeared to me that common sense coupled with pertinent business experience may be sufficient to tackle these issues. I don’t mean to undermine the nature and complexity of such challenges, rather trying to look at the big picture needed to address emerging business issues and I am sure implementing an approach aided by common sense is definitely an effective and efficient mechanism.
In addition to the aforementioned cases, I would like to see the class deal with challenges, solutions and business frameworks related (not limited) to the below mentioned.
· Estimating Market Sizes
· Entering New Markets
· Mergers and Acquisitions
· Falling Profits
· New Product Introductions
These aforementioned problems are prevalent in higher management circles and it would be engaging to analyze and solve such cases, implementing critical business and management concepts ranging from marketing, accounting, strategy, etc. Further, cases associated with such domains facilitate reasoning that links specific management functions and the pertinent dependencies and relationships between each and how to use such dependencies to form solutions.
Further, solving such cases require some established business frameworks like the Porter’s 5 forces, the 3 C’s, SWOT analysis, etc which are everyday business tools used by management consultants to approach similar business issues. Experience and knowledge about such business cases and mechanisms to solve them would be extremely handy for students when similar topics and issues may be critical components for future assignments.
A number of interactive case-studies and solutions related to the aforementioned can be found in the following sources
1.) http://www.bain.com/bainweb/Join_Bain/case_interviews.asp
2.) http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/how_do_i_apply/how_to_do_well_in_the_interview/case_interview.aspx
Reflection - John Tulinsky
The Blog as a Classroom Tool
At the beginning of the quarter I was interested to learn that we would be using a blog to supplement normal class discussions in our Change Management class. The proliferation of blogs devoted to every conceivable topic cannot be overstated. At their best blogs are an outstanding medium for rapid publication and for a productive interaction between users and authors. However, like any buzzword-generating phenomenon they have been adopted in numerous environments, some of which are a bad fit for the technology.
Our class blog was collaborative and invitation-only. That is, posting was limited to students in the class and posts were related to class material. The professor reviewed posts and comments before publication. A small number of posts were taken down or posted anonymously but overall there was limited moderation of the content. As of November 27, 2007 the blog contained 201 posts; 44 posts had been commented upon, with a total of 90 comments. The most comments to a single post were eight; however the majority of posts with comments had a single comment. Also, there was a clear trend with a higher percentage of commented posts and nearly all of the posts with multiple comments occurring early in the quarter.
As a medium for rapidly elaborating upon classroom discussion and for the general display of student’s work the blog was a great success. I found that the posts were consistently interesting, well-written and often thought-provoking. However, as a means for generating an interactive discussion it was less successful, as shown by the commenting statistics. I believe that this is largely due to the sheer volume of posts. Blogs are based on the chronology of posts; with over 200 posts in approximately 10 weeks any individual post quickly sinks below the fold. Individual posts need more visibility to generate active follow-up discussion. However, given the volume of material I don’t see an easy solution. The volume of posts also complicated navigation. Over the course of the quarter I’ve thought about other tools for collaboration of this sort. One possibility is to use a social networking tool such as ning. Each student would have her own page, and be part of a network consisting of the class. Access could be restricted to the class or made open to the public. Students could be updated of other student’s posts through an RSS feed. This approach has the advantage of grouping student’s work together, however the professor loses control as a moderator and it would be difficult to, for example, scan all of the book reviews. I think a better approach would be to use a more sophisticated blogging tool. Being able to search the site and filter the results, for example by student, by assignment (book review, reflection…) and especially by tag would facilitate comparison of different posts and possibly stimulate discussion. For example, the professor could supply a standard tag for each lecture, much like conferences suggest flickr tags to attendees. Any reflection based on a particular lecture would have a specific tag, as well as other tags added by the student, thus simplifying the task of finding all posts on a specific topic.
My primary complaints about the use of the blog in our class regard usability issues of the tool used. However, in general I found contributing to and reading Ideas 4 Change to be an interesting and valuable learning experience. I hope that it continues to be used in future classes.
At the beginning of the quarter I was interested to learn that we would be using a blog to supplement normal class discussions in our Change Management class. The proliferation of blogs devoted to every conceivable topic cannot be overstated. At their best blogs are an outstanding medium for rapid publication and for a productive interaction between users and authors. However, like any buzzword-generating phenomenon they have been adopted in numerous environments, some of which are a bad fit for the technology.
Our class blog was collaborative and invitation-only. That is, posting was limited to students in the class and posts were related to class material. The professor reviewed posts and comments before publication. A small number of posts were taken down or posted anonymously but overall there was limited moderation of the content. As of November 27, 2007 the blog contained 201 posts; 44 posts had been commented upon, with a total of 90 comments. The most comments to a single post were eight; however the majority of posts with comments had a single comment. Also, there was a clear trend with a higher percentage of commented posts and nearly all of the posts with multiple comments occurring early in the quarter.
As a medium for rapidly elaborating upon classroom discussion and for the general display of student’s work the blog was a great success. I found that the posts were consistently interesting, well-written and often thought-provoking. However, as a means for generating an interactive discussion it was less successful, as shown by the commenting statistics. I believe that this is largely due to the sheer volume of posts. Blogs are based on the chronology of posts; with over 200 posts in approximately 10 weeks any individual post quickly sinks below the fold. Individual posts need more visibility to generate active follow-up discussion. However, given the volume of material I don’t see an easy solution. The volume of posts also complicated navigation. Over the course of the quarter I’ve thought about other tools for collaboration of this sort. One possibility is to use a social networking tool such as ning. Each student would have her own page, and be part of a network consisting of the class. Access could be restricted to the class or made open to the public. Students could be updated of other student’s posts through an RSS feed. This approach has the advantage of grouping student’s work together, however the professor loses control as a moderator and it would be difficult to, for example, scan all of the book reviews. I think a better approach would be to use a more sophisticated blogging tool. Being able to search the site and filter the results, for example by student, by assignment (book review, reflection…) and especially by tag would facilitate comparison of different posts and possibly stimulate discussion. For example, the professor could supply a standard tag for each lecture, much like conferences suggest flickr tags to attendees. Any reflection based on a particular lecture would have a specific tag, as well as other tags added by the student, thus simplifying the task of finding all posts on a specific topic.
My primary complaints about the use of the blog in our class regard usability issues of the tool used. However, in general I found contributing to and reading Ideas 4 Change to be an interesting and valuable learning experience. I hope that it continues to be used in future classes.
Reflection - Sinsath Shameer
Is an organization like a ‘sports’ team?
Can an organization be compared to a sports team? We talked about this in class today and by ‘sports’ I specifically mean outdoor sports like hockey, basketball, soccer, volley ball where you have a bunch of people on both sides and each side play against each other to achieve the overall goal of winning the match. I am also talking purely about competitive sports and it should be distinguished from recreational sports team. Recreational sports team has a more social role to it where people play to get to know each other, maybe get some exercise and have some fun. But a competitive sports team is goal oriented, focused on winning and has a purpose to play for and a challenge to face. [1]
Every sports team has a leader, the team members are selected and they lay out the purpose for their game. They plan, create strategies and in ideal conditions play together as a team with the ultimate goal of winning. Individual performance does matter but it is secondary compared to the overall team performance with each player being greatly affected by the overall result of the match. But does it always happen that all the team members only think about the team as a whole and not their individual performance during the match? It occasionally happens that the players put their self interest ahead of the team and this might have a negative impact on the team depending on what the action is. But it happens very often in any organization. Yes, you select the best of the best for your team, form a team leader and expect everyone to work in unison for the best of the company. It sounds simple but everyone knows how hard is to achieve this. Self interest of people tend to show up all the time and ultimately the leader and the upper management is forced to take actions based on what is best for the team.
On a closer analysis, I also find that each and every team member in a sports team is very knowledgeable about the game. Each and every player is supposed to know the rules of the game, how it is scored and how to read the information from the scorecard [1]. This doesn’t happen in a traditional organization where each employee is not expected to know about how the whole organization functions. He is expected to know about his role but do you think all the employees in an organization would care about understanding the interdependencies between each group in the organization, how each functions etc.? Many employees have a vague sense about the collective objective of the group and bothered more about doing a good job in his functional area in order to get the paycheck.
I can imagine how effective you could make an organization if they had each and every employee dedicated to organizational success. The success in achieving cohesion in a sports team can be dedicated to the fact that it is a much smaller group and it is relatively easier to figure out what is not working in a team or what needs to be changed. But with a large organization often it is impossible to find the faulty areas and hence that makes it equally difficult to fix the unknown. What an organization can take from a sports team is to make each and every employee accountable for his actions and make them relate their function to the overall organizational performance.
References:
[1]http://www.beysterinstitute.org/other_resources/leading_companies/nov07/lc1107newmodelEO.html
Can an organization be compared to a sports team? We talked about this in class today and by ‘sports’ I specifically mean outdoor sports like hockey, basketball, soccer, volley ball where you have a bunch of people on both sides and each side play against each other to achieve the overall goal of winning the match. I am also talking purely about competitive sports and it should be distinguished from recreational sports team. Recreational sports team has a more social role to it where people play to get to know each other, maybe get some exercise and have some fun. But a competitive sports team is goal oriented, focused on winning and has a purpose to play for and a challenge to face. [1]
Every sports team has a leader, the team members are selected and they lay out the purpose for their game. They plan, create strategies and in ideal conditions play together as a team with the ultimate goal of winning. Individual performance does matter but it is secondary compared to the overall team performance with each player being greatly affected by the overall result of the match. But does it always happen that all the team members only think about the team as a whole and not their individual performance during the match? It occasionally happens that the players put their self interest ahead of the team and this might have a negative impact on the team depending on what the action is. But it happens very often in any organization. Yes, you select the best of the best for your team, form a team leader and expect everyone to work in unison for the best of the company. It sounds simple but everyone knows how hard is to achieve this. Self interest of people tend to show up all the time and ultimately the leader and the upper management is forced to take actions based on what is best for the team.
On a closer analysis, I also find that each and every team member in a sports team is very knowledgeable about the game. Each and every player is supposed to know the rules of the game, how it is scored and how to read the information from the scorecard [1]. This doesn’t happen in a traditional organization where each employee is not expected to know about how the whole organization functions. He is expected to know about his role but do you think all the employees in an organization would care about understanding the interdependencies between each group in the organization, how each functions etc.? Many employees have a vague sense about the collective objective of the group and bothered more about doing a good job in his functional area in order to get the paycheck.
I can imagine how effective you could make an organization if they had each and every employee dedicated to organizational success. The success in achieving cohesion in a sports team can be dedicated to the fact that it is a much smaller group and it is relatively easier to figure out what is not working in a team or what needs to be changed. But with a large organization often it is impossible to find the faulty areas and hence that makes it equally difficult to fix the unknown. What an organization can take from a sports team is to make each and every employee accountable for his actions and make them relate their function to the overall organizational performance.
References:
[1]http://www.beysterinstitute.org/other_resources/leading_companies/nov07/lc1107newmodelEO.html
Reflection - Cen (Mia) Zhao
Reflection – Review on Jill Woelfer’s presentation and article
In today’s class, Jill Woelfer’s creatively used Jazz metaphor to tell us an important point that there are different approaches to make changes happen. Like what she said, Washington factory, which is much smaller than the Germany one, could be more agile and flexible. So it does not need to follow the way Germany factory did. It can be changed non-traditionally just as Count Basie created his Jazz.
But if Washington factory did use a different approach to the change of part numbering system, would Germany factory believe that the effects will be the same? Through reading Jill’s article, obviously, the answer is no. German representatives did doubt when the Washington representative proposed an agile movement to the new intended part number formats for the Washington factory. They could not believe that she would get the change results. In class, Jill well proved to us that different approaches can achieve the same goal by using Jazz metaphor. However, in reality, how could she prove this point of view to the Germany representatives and let them trust Washington factory could go a different way?
I admit that Jill explained Jazz music very well. Even me, who had no background knowledge about Jazz, could fully understand the changes of Jazz and the underlying meaning for those two changes. But I still doubt whether German representatives would like to spend one hour to understand these conceptions and then be willing to change their former views. From German representatives’ perspective, it is still hard to believe in a different approach until they could see the effects of changes directly. So one solution to this question is to show the change results of part numbering system in Washington factory to Germany factory and let them believe that the agile movement did work here. However, there is an assumption here that the changes are visible and could be well proved. In the real world, this is not always the case.
Another solution to this problem is, as Jill mentioned in class, to try to make two different Jazz players in one band. Both of them should respect each other’s style. I have ever heard such a story. There are two bothers. One sells salt and the other sells umbrella. Their mother always feels happy because when it rains, umbrella sells well and when it is sunny, salt sells well. The same principle could be applied to Count Basie and Benny Goodman or even Washington factory and Germany factory. If Count Basie and Benny Goodman were in the same band, the style should depend on the majority of audiences. Correspondingly, if Germany factory and Washington factory have to use the same approach, then the chosen of the approaches should depend on the influence of changes in these two factories.
In today’s class, Jill Woelfer’s creatively used Jazz metaphor to tell us an important point that there are different approaches to make changes happen. Like what she said, Washington factory, which is much smaller than the Germany one, could be more agile and flexible. So it does not need to follow the way Germany factory did. It can be changed non-traditionally just as Count Basie created his Jazz.
But if Washington factory did use a different approach to the change of part numbering system, would Germany factory believe that the effects will be the same? Through reading Jill’s article, obviously, the answer is no. German representatives did doubt when the Washington representative proposed an agile movement to the new intended part number formats for the Washington factory. They could not believe that she would get the change results. In class, Jill well proved to us that different approaches can achieve the same goal by using Jazz metaphor. However, in reality, how could she prove this point of view to the Germany representatives and let them trust Washington factory could go a different way?
I admit that Jill explained Jazz music very well. Even me, who had no background knowledge about Jazz, could fully understand the changes of Jazz and the underlying meaning for those two changes. But I still doubt whether German representatives would like to spend one hour to understand these conceptions and then be willing to change their former views. From German representatives’ perspective, it is still hard to believe in a different approach until they could see the effects of changes directly. So one solution to this question is to show the change results of part numbering system in Washington factory to Germany factory and let them believe that the agile movement did work here. However, there is an assumption here that the changes are visible and could be well proved. In the real world, this is not always the case.
Another solution to this problem is, as Jill mentioned in class, to try to make two different Jazz players in one band. Both of them should respect each other’s style. I have ever heard such a story. There are two bothers. One sells salt and the other sells umbrella. Their mother always feels happy because when it rains, umbrella sells well and when it is sunny, salt sells well. The same principle could be applied to Count Basie and Benny Goodman or even Washington factory and Germany factory. If Count Basie and Benny Goodman were in the same band, the style should depend on the majority of audiences. Correspondingly, if Germany factory and Washington factory have to use the same approach, then the chosen of the approaches should depend on the influence of changes in these two factories.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Reflection - David Gui
Communicate to build trust
In one class we were showed a video case on Novasys Medical, which it had dedicated full resource to develop a product which was anticipated to be high-profitable, but could not get FDA’s approval for market release. The management of Novasys Medical had tried several means, including legal appeal to turn the decision around; however it was told that the success rate of such appeal was only 20%. By knowing the situation, we were assigned to groups and discussed whether or not the CEO of the company should disclose the information to employees and decided what would be the affects following either decision.
To me the video case raised two issues organizations face when in change: communication and trust. For Novasys Medical, the situation was that the research and development of the product was a major achievement for the company, and if the product could get approval for market release, it will certainly significantly move the company forward. Nevertheless, because of the high possibility of denial by FDA, the CEO was hesitated to disclose the information to employees; and I can tell such hesitation was caused by fear of sharing of such information would diminish employee morale and sense of security. However, the CEO shouldn’t forget that, being a small company with less than 100 employees, dissemination of information in Novasys Medical could be as easy and fast as possible; and because of the significance of the product to the company, it could be assumed that people’s eagerness toward information about the product was high, and therefore if they are not given the information they are interested in, they will possibly make up something to fill that void, and the consequence of such possibility could be unwelcome. This dilemma is also faced by lots of other organizations today when in change; people always want to know everything that has impact on them, but management is often afraid of the result of sharing of some information. However, at the same time, organizations can’t don’t communicate; because even if they don’t say or don’t act, that will send a message to people, and that could be misleading. Therefore, to avoid such issue, organizations simply need to communicate.
My experience tells me that when people make up information, they engage in rumoring. I have to admit that rumor is among the fastest and most active communication channels in any organization, based on what I have experienced in my internship. A lot of the times, I first receive organizational information through rumor, then email or bulletin board, or any other communication channel, regardless of if that information is important or trivial, or even really existed. At the same time, rumor is also the most unreliable source of information, as it can contain inaccurate information. However, it is no doubt that rumor can do a lot to affect an organization’s change; just think about this, in the Novasys Medical case, if the CEO decided to hide the information from employees, and employees started to engage in rumoring, what would be the consequence? What if the information gets erroneous but wide spread, for example, instead of 20% success rate for the appeal, it becomes 80%? This wouldn’t be good because it will create illusive optimism among employees but once the truth is discovered it will heavily hit employee morale.
In the end of the video, the CEO mentioned she eventually decided to let employees know the situation. I agreed with her and believed she made a smart decision. This also showed her effort to create trust among employees. Surely by knowing the fact it will be a big disappointment to employees, because nobody will be happy about knowing there is a high chance of years of effort being wasted; but it will also be a great encouragement to know the organization is trying the best to turn things around, which shows its commitment for the product and more importantly, appreciation for employees’ hard work. This would in turn exchange employees’ trust and loyalty, which will positively impact the organization in the long-run. This point can be supported by the result of the vote “If Novasys Medical decides to give up the appeal, would you as an employee stay in the company?” in the end of the class discussion, which a majority of the class voted “No”. Based on such result, I would assume that if the vote was “If Novasys Medical decides to continue the appeal, would you as an employee stay in the company?” most people would vote “Yes”. Although it is very possible that the appeal will not work, but such action will definitely show the company’s commitment, and that will win employees’ trust. Therefore though there will be a loss today; the company will gain in the future.
Today managers shouldn’t be shortsighted and only think about one side of the matter. It is one of the most important principles organization of any size should keep in mind that it must keep its employees informed about anything that has impact on them. Certainly there is risk that the sharing of some information can bring negative affects; but that shouldn’t prevent the organization from disseminating it. More importantly, strategically organization can often communicate to build trust; because it shows the organization’s commitment and responsibility toward its employees.
In one class we were showed a video case on Novasys Medical, which it had dedicated full resource to develop a product which was anticipated to be high-profitable, but could not get FDA’s approval for market release. The management of Novasys Medical had tried several means, including legal appeal to turn the decision around; however it was told that the success rate of such appeal was only 20%. By knowing the situation, we were assigned to groups and discussed whether or not the CEO of the company should disclose the information to employees and decided what would be the affects following either decision.
To me the video case raised two issues organizations face when in change: communication and trust. For Novasys Medical, the situation was that the research and development of the product was a major achievement for the company, and if the product could get approval for market release, it will certainly significantly move the company forward. Nevertheless, because of the high possibility of denial by FDA, the CEO was hesitated to disclose the information to employees; and I can tell such hesitation was caused by fear of sharing of such information would diminish employee morale and sense of security. However, the CEO shouldn’t forget that, being a small company with less than 100 employees, dissemination of information in Novasys Medical could be as easy and fast as possible; and because of the significance of the product to the company, it could be assumed that people’s eagerness toward information about the product was high, and therefore if they are not given the information they are interested in, they will possibly make up something to fill that void, and the consequence of such possibility could be unwelcome. This dilemma is also faced by lots of other organizations today when in change; people always want to know everything that has impact on them, but management is often afraid of the result of sharing of some information. However, at the same time, organizations can’t don’t communicate; because even if they don’t say or don’t act, that will send a message to people, and that could be misleading. Therefore, to avoid such issue, organizations simply need to communicate.
My experience tells me that when people make up information, they engage in rumoring. I have to admit that rumor is among the fastest and most active communication channels in any organization, based on what I have experienced in my internship. A lot of the times, I first receive organizational information through rumor, then email or bulletin board, or any other communication channel, regardless of if that information is important or trivial, or even really existed. At the same time, rumor is also the most unreliable source of information, as it can contain inaccurate information. However, it is no doubt that rumor can do a lot to affect an organization’s change; just think about this, in the Novasys Medical case, if the CEO decided to hide the information from employees, and employees started to engage in rumoring, what would be the consequence? What if the information gets erroneous but wide spread, for example, instead of 20% success rate for the appeal, it becomes 80%? This wouldn’t be good because it will create illusive optimism among employees but once the truth is discovered it will heavily hit employee morale.
In the end of the video, the CEO mentioned she eventually decided to let employees know the situation. I agreed with her and believed she made a smart decision. This also showed her effort to create trust among employees. Surely by knowing the fact it will be a big disappointment to employees, because nobody will be happy about knowing there is a high chance of years of effort being wasted; but it will also be a great encouragement to know the organization is trying the best to turn things around, which shows its commitment for the product and more importantly, appreciation for employees’ hard work. This would in turn exchange employees’ trust and loyalty, which will positively impact the organization in the long-run. This point can be supported by the result of the vote “If Novasys Medical decides to give up the appeal, would you as an employee stay in the company?” in the end of the class discussion, which a majority of the class voted “No”. Based on such result, I would assume that if the vote was “If Novasys Medical decides to continue the appeal, would you as an employee stay in the company?” most people would vote “Yes”. Although it is very possible that the appeal will not work, but such action will definitely show the company’s commitment, and that will win employees’ trust. Therefore though there will be a loss today; the company will gain in the future.
Today managers shouldn’t be shortsighted and only think about one side of the matter. It is one of the most important principles organization of any size should keep in mind that it must keep its employees informed about anything that has impact on them. Certainly there is risk that the sharing of some information can bring negative affects; but that shouldn’t prevent the organization from disseminating it. More importantly, strategically organization can often communicate to build trust; because it shows the organization’s commitment and responsibility toward its employees.
Reflection - Lokesh Ramani
Change Management Mechanisms – Different Mechanisms to Reach Common Objectives
Jill Woelfer discussed about the change management initiatives in her organization – Phillips and possible lessons that can be learnt from specific jazz related improvisations from bands in the 1930’s. It was interesting to understand the scope of the change management initiatives that were pursued in Phillips, trying to change some of its market and brand positioning to the external customers and to improve organizational efficiencies by changing its outlook towards a “simplified” workplace.
The two Jazz bands under investigation were the “Goodman’s Orchestra” and “Basie’s Orchestra” whose outlook towards their band performances and jazz improvisations were at the opposite ends and subsequently the change management analogies were two contrasting models. This brings in something pertinent that is widespread across any business. Organizations are increasingly operating as individual internal sub-businesses spread across different countries, with different organizational cultures and varying organizational mission and goals.
After establishing common change management related objectives, it is critical to devise pertinent mechanisms to achieve the aforementioned objectives based on the organizational environment that is under a transition of change. Both the jazz bands were able to appeal to their respective target audience irrespective of the outlook adopted towards their improvisations. This brings out an important point that has to be acknowledged in large scale businesses. Change management mechanisms would be effective and possess minimum side-effects, if the core components of the organization that are the central subjects of change are analyzed and the dynamics of these components are reflected in the respective change management mechanisms.
During Jill’s discussion, I was under the perception that the success factors established for the two jazz bands under study were their popularity in their respective shows and the quality of their performances. While I acknowledge that these two bands employed the style of music as the central component to initiate change in the jazz music scene outlook, I would like to see the effects of other factors that contributed towards this change management initiative. Some factors that I think may be pertinent in contributing towards the success factors are the band’s reputation, any single band member’s charisma, nature of the target audience, trends in the jazz music scene, etc. In organizations, some of the aforementioned factors translated to the appropriate business terminology may be additional important factors that can play favorable roles in making a change management initiative successful. By also studying certain individual charismatic leaders like Jack Welsh, Steve Jobs, etc, we may be able to derive some key insights about how additional factors related to a leader’s personality may be effective in delivering successful change management mechanisms.
Jill Woelfer discussed about the change management initiatives in her organization – Phillips and possible lessons that can be learnt from specific jazz related improvisations from bands in the 1930’s. It was interesting to understand the scope of the change management initiatives that were pursued in Phillips, trying to change some of its market and brand positioning to the external customers and to improve organizational efficiencies by changing its outlook towards a “simplified” workplace.
The two Jazz bands under investigation were the “Goodman’s Orchestra” and “Basie’s Orchestra” whose outlook towards their band performances and jazz improvisations were at the opposite ends and subsequently the change management analogies were two contrasting models. This brings in something pertinent that is widespread across any business. Organizations are increasingly operating as individual internal sub-businesses spread across different countries, with different organizational cultures and varying organizational mission and goals.
After establishing common change management related objectives, it is critical to devise pertinent mechanisms to achieve the aforementioned objectives based on the organizational environment that is under a transition of change. Both the jazz bands were able to appeal to their respective target audience irrespective of the outlook adopted towards their improvisations. This brings out an important point that has to be acknowledged in large scale businesses. Change management mechanisms would be effective and possess minimum side-effects, if the core components of the organization that are the central subjects of change are analyzed and the dynamics of these components are reflected in the respective change management mechanisms.
During Jill’s discussion, I was under the perception that the success factors established for the two jazz bands under study were their popularity in their respective shows and the quality of their performances. While I acknowledge that these two bands employed the style of music as the central component to initiate change in the jazz music scene outlook, I would like to see the effects of other factors that contributed towards this change management initiative. Some factors that I think may be pertinent in contributing towards the success factors are the band’s reputation, any single band member’s charisma, nature of the target audience, trends in the jazz music scene, etc. In organizations, some of the aforementioned factors translated to the appropriate business terminology may be additional important factors that can play favorable roles in making a change management initiative successful. By also studying certain individual charismatic leaders like Jack Welsh, Steve Jobs, etc, we may be able to derive some key insights about how additional factors related to a leader’s personality may be effective in delivering successful change management mechanisms.
Reflection - Serkan Pektas
Thoughts about Jill Woelfer’s article on Jazz Metaphor
I have been thinking that the complex adaptive systems and the traditional organizations are two different management styles that have both unique application fields. For instance, in a software development company, the complex adaptive system management is more appropriate than the traditional system. Also, in a manufacturing company, traditional organization management style is more applicable. Of course there are not only black and white practices of those systems, but also various combinations of both systems. The combination of those systems can be found in one company according to department’s necessities and requirements.
However, I did not think about that those systems are the preference of the manager’s administration style, and both can be applied to same area with different managers like in Woelfer’s article on Jazz Metaphor. I have always seen Jazz as a good example of the complex adaptive system. Before all other properties, jazz is an art, and I thought that it cannot be fit in traditional methods. Though, Woelfer’s analytical comments on Goodman’s orchestra are the convincing proof of the counter argument. She also gives an example of the jazz band, Count Basie’s big band, which was followed the complex adaptive systems model. According to her, “Benny Goodman and Count Basie were both successful big band leaders whose organizations were served by the change management models adopted by their leaders.”
This article makes me think about that there is no unique way to manage a company, organization, and/or country. The difference between the Fordism[1] and the Toyotism[2] manufacturing style is the evidence of this reflection. The complex adaptive systems can also be applicable to the business areas in which traditional management styles are the best practices to run the company. The organizations adapt themselves according to their leaders and the success is depends on the leaders’ talent and decisiveness. The organizations are composed of individuals, but the organizations have an identity beyond those individual characteristics and what shapes this identity is the leadership style.
[1] Fordism is the method of industrial management based on assembly-line methods production of cheap, uniform commodities in high volume, and winning employee loyalty with good wages, but intolerant of unionism or employee participation.
[2] Toyotism depends on the culture of labor-management cooperation, multi-skilling and cross divisional problem solving, and the creation of such a culture is the first requirement.
I have been thinking that the complex adaptive systems and the traditional organizations are two different management styles that have both unique application fields. For instance, in a software development company, the complex adaptive system management is more appropriate than the traditional system. Also, in a manufacturing company, traditional organization management style is more applicable. Of course there are not only black and white practices of those systems, but also various combinations of both systems. The combination of those systems can be found in one company according to department’s necessities and requirements.
However, I did not think about that those systems are the preference of the manager’s administration style, and both can be applied to same area with different managers like in Woelfer’s article on Jazz Metaphor. I have always seen Jazz as a good example of the complex adaptive system. Before all other properties, jazz is an art, and I thought that it cannot be fit in traditional methods. Though, Woelfer’s analytical comments on Goodman’s orchestra are the convincing proof of the counter argument. She also gives an example of the jazz band, Count Basie’s big band, which was followed the complex adaptive systems model. According to her, “Benny Goodman and Count Basie were both successful big band leaders whose organizations were served by the change management models adopted by their leaders.”
This article makes me think about that there is no unique way to manage a company, organization, and/or country. The difference between the Fordism[1] and the Toyotism[2] manufacturing style is the evidence of this reflection. The complex adaptive systems can also be applicable to the business areas in which traditional management styles are the best practices to run the company. The organizations adapt themselves according to their leaders and the success is depends on the leaders’ talent and decisiveness. The organizations are composed of individuals, but the organizations have an identity beyond those individual characteristics and what shapes this identity is the leadership style.
[1] Fordism is the method of industrial management based on assembly-line methods production of cheap, uniform commodities in high volume, and winning employee loyalty with good wages, but intolerant of unionism or employee participation.
[2] Toyotism depends on the culture of labor-management cooperation, multi-skilling and cross divisional problem solving, and the creation of such a culture is the first requirement.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Reflection - Rebecca M. Allen
While researching Jack Welch for the final paper, I learned that one of Jack’s goals for General Electric’s culture was an essence of “boundarylessness,” a word he created to capture his dream of interactions marked by candor and informality. Jack’s methods for achieving boundaryless communications were definitely successful. I read descriptions of GE meetings that were so fascinating, they made me wish I could have been a fly on the wall as they played out. I also read descriptions that were less appealing: Jack’s raucous meetings were compared to everything from frat parties, to Miller Light commercials, to no-holds-barred food fights. It was a style that worked for GE at the time, but I began wondering if there is a conflicting perspective to the value of open communication and informality. I found it, and from none other than Miss Manners herself, Judith Martin.[1]
Judith Martin, who has written “about etiquette for more than 25 years,” disagrees with Jack’s methods (p. 42). She doesn’t feel that reckless honestly is necessarily the best policy, nor does following a social code of etiquette negatively impact the workplace. “Indeed,” she says, “the whole point of etiquette is precisely its artificiality, which helps us deal with the extremes of human emotion by expressing them in a way that others can tolerate” (p. 42). She suggests that we have been forced to fall back on the law to control workplace behaviors, such as sexual harassment, because as a whole, there is little respect for implicit rules of etiquette. Removing basic inhibitions through reinforcing informality, she advocates, creates more problems than it solves.
According to Martin, blurring the lines between your personal and professional lives is not only foolhardy, but impossible: “On the one hand, the boss was firing people; on the other hand, he was saying, ‘Oh, we’re just like family.’ And employees thought, ‘Oh no we’re not!’” (p. 43). Further reinforcing the danger of blurred boundaries, Martin cautions against socializing only with workmates:
“I get these pathetic letters from 70-year-old retired executives who say, ‘I worked for 40 years in this office, and everybody loved me. They gave me this huge party when I left. And now nobody calls me. What happened?’ What happened, I say, is that your colleagues aren’t your friends—and they never were” (p. 44).
These at first seem like drastic statements. Some of my oldest and dearest friends I met while working at the same job with them. But truth be told, if I had to work with them today, it would drive me nuts (and if I were to ask them, I’m sure they would say the same!). We’ve basically gone past the point of no return, and while we have a deep respect for each another, it just wouldn’t translate properly in the workplace (think less of a Miller Light commercial and more of a Sex and the City episode. Or The Golden Girls). One would think that being emotionally close with another person would guarantee well-mannered behavior, but the opposite may be true. I am much more likely to show my negative side to people I am intimate with, because I know I can “get away with it.” According to Miss Manners, “Etiquette is supposed to inhibit the instinct to act on our offensive impulses” (p. 45). We enjoy spending time with friends and family because we don’t necessarily have to inhibit ourselves; we can relax and put our guard down. This is great for personal relationships, but can be positively disastrous for professional relationships.
What does all this say for change management? A lot, but nothing too decisive, in my opinion. When Jack was first pegged as the next CEO of GE in 1980, he was interviewed by the New York Times.[2] The article described his notoriety for being aggressive, rebellious, and a “trouble-making maverick.” When asked if his personality might disrupt his leadership, he replied, “I don’t view it as an issue. We have in our organization a very homogenous group of people dedicated to a broad strategic plan.” Jack surrounded himself with people exactly like him, blurred the boundaries between work and family, and found that method to be very successful in pulling off large-scale change at GE. Yet, I can also see how workplace practices such as these would be utterly detrimental to achieving change. As has been concluded before, the correct application of methods truly depends on contextual factors.
References
1. In praise of boundaries: A conversation with Miss Manners. (2003, December). Harvard Business Review, 41-45.
2. Hayes, T.C. (1980, December 28). Changing the guard at G.E. The New York Times.
Judith Martin, who has written “about etiquette for more than 25 years,” disagrees with Jack’s methods (p. 42). She doesn’t feel that reckless honestly is necessarily the best policy, nor does following a social code of etiquette negatively impact the workplace. “Indeed,” she says, “the whole point of etiquette is precisely its artificiality, which helps us deal with the extremes of human emotion by expressing them in a way that others can tolerate” (p. 42). She suggests that we have been forced to fall back on the law to control workplace behaviors, such as sexual harassment, because as a whole, there is little respect for implicit rules of etiquette. Removing basic inhibitions through reinforcing informality, she advocates, creates more problems than it solves.
According to Martin, blurring the lines between your personal and professional lives is not only foolhardy, but impossible: “On the one hand, the boss was firing people; on the other hand, he was saying, ‘Oh, we’re just like family.’ And employees thought, ‘Oh no we’re not!’” (p. 43). Further reinforcing the danger of blurred boundaries, Martin cautions against socializing only with workmates:
“I get these pathetic letters from 70-year-old retired executives who say, ‘I worked for 40 years in this office, and everybody loved me. They gave me this huge party when I left. And now nobody calls me. What happened?’ What happened, I say, is that your colleagues aren’t your friends—and they never were” (p. 44).
These at first seem like drastic statements. Some of my oldest and dearest friends I met while working at the same job with them. But truth be told, if I had to work with them today, it would drive me nuts (and if I were to ask them, I’m sure they would say the same!). We’ve basically gone past the point of no return, and while we have a deep respect for each another, it just wouldn’t translate properly in the workplace (think less of a Miller Light commercial and more of a Sex and the City episode. Or The Golden Girls). One would think that being emotionally close with another person would guarantee well-mannered behavior, but the opposite may be true. I am much more likely to show my negative side to people I am intimate with, because I know I can “get away with it.” According to Miss Manners, “Etiquette is supposed to inhibit the instinct to act on our offensive impulses” (p. 45). We enjoy spending time with friends and family because we don’t necessarily have to inhibit ourselves; we can relax and put our guard down. This is great for personal relationships, but can be positively disastrous for professional relationships.
What does all this say for change management? A lot, but nothing too decisive, in my opinion. When Jack was first pegged as the next CEO of GE in 1980, he was interviewed by the New York Times.[2] The article described his notoriety for being aggressive, rebellious, and a “trouble-making maverick.” When asked if his personality might disrupt his leadership, he replied, “I don’t view it as an issue. We have in our organization a very homogenous group of people dedicated to a broad strategic plan.” Jack surrounded himself with people exactly like him, blurred the boundaries between work and family, and found that method to be very successful in pulling off large-scale change at GE. Yet, I can also see how workplace practices such as these would be utterly detrimental to achieving change. As has been concluded before, the correct application of methods truly depends on contextual factors.
References
1. In praise of boundaries: A conversation with Miss Manners. (2003, December). Harvard Business Review, 41-45.
2. Hayes, T.C. (1980, December 28). Changing the guard at G.E. The New York Times.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Reflection - Usha Jose
Steve Jobs
This reflection revolves around Apple Inc.'s inimitable CEO Steve Jobs. As part of our term paper research, we found many interesting revelations about Apple, a company known as much for its current CEO as for its unique products. Every year the world eagerly awaits the MacWorld conference where it expects to be surprised by the ‘man in black [turtle neck].’
Despite having some very good leadership qualities, Steve’s intolerance for mistakes made him an unappealing boss; which resulted in his oust from Apple in 1985. Rather than considering Steve’s expulsion from Apple the greatest mistake in the history of HR as Larry Ellison puts it, I think of it as the greatest lesson in the history of HR which any executive can learn from. Steve Jobs mellowed down considerably during his enforced sabbatical that lasted more than 11 years. Though not a completely changed man, Steve had to put forward his best people skills during his second innings. When he came back on Apples’ board in 1997, Apple was a sinking ship. Many analysts had sung dirge to it years ago. Steve’s zeal was the right cure which Apple needed badly in the late 90’s.
Steve started his second tenure by instilling a company wide sense of urgency for the release of iMac. Though he implemented various changes in Apple, it is doubtful if it measures up to the draconian ‘Theory E’ changes that Jack Welch implemented in GE. I consider his actions as more planned and calculated in stopping the decline of Apple and rebuilding its lost glory step by step. We can also observe a trajectory of continuous change in Apple’s new strategy. Its new friendly face towards Microsoft shows that yesterday’s ‘no’ is today’s ‘yes’ in business world.
A very important factor that has contributed greatly to Apple’s phenomenal success in recent years is its ability to cash in on the digital wave. This has helped Apple to become a pioneer in consumer electronics market. With Steve navigating it, Apple has carved a niche for itself in the fledgling digital scenario. IPod and iPhone have become legendary and nothing can ever hope to displace them unless it is another Apple product.
Steve Jobs is a self – proclaimed maverick who delights in steering Apple from success to success. I strongly believe Apple could not have come back so strongly without Steve Jobs. I esteem Steve Jobs for his pioneering vision and innovative ideas. He has the foresight to see where things are headed to, and has the power to put his plans into action. And maybe sometimes it takes a task master to make the herd take the leap of faith.
Though personally I might not want to work for a task master like Steve, from a distant prospective, he looks admirable. It will be interesting to see where Steve heads Apple to in the coming years.
Apple Inc is as unique as its products. Apple has a very meager market share compared to the other titans in the industry, but that does not in anyway shrink its relevance in the industry. Apple is an extension of Steve's personality and there is no doubt that Steve Jobs gave Apple a second life.
References
1. Richard Luecke, (2003) Managing Change and Transition: Harvard Business Essentials, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
2. Steve Jobs: Return of the king; Tobi Elkin, Joan Voight. Brandweek. New York: Oct 12, 1998. Vol. 39, Iss. 38; pg. S40, 4 pgs
3. The second coming of Apple; David Kirkpatrick. Fortune. New York: Nov 9, 1998. Vol. 138, Iss. 9; pg. 86, 5 pgs
This reflection revolves around Apple Inc.'s inimitable CEO Steve Jobs. As part of our term paper research, we found many interesting revelations about Apple, a company known as much for its current CEO as for its unique products. Every year the world eagerly awaits the MacWorld conference where it expects to be surprised by the ‘man in black [turtle neck].’
Despite having some very good leadership qualities, Steve’s intolerance for mistakes made him an unappealing boss; which resulted in his oust from Apple in 1985. Rather than considering Steve’s expulsion from Apple the greatest mistake in the history of HR as Larry Ellison puts it, I think of it as the greatest lesson in the history of HR which any executive can learn from. Steve Jobs mellowed down considerably during his enforced sabbatical that lasted more than 11 years. Though not a completely changed man, Steve had to put forward his best people skills during his second innings. When he came back on Apples’ board in 1997, Apple was a sinking ship. Many analysts had sung dirge to it years ago. Steve’s zeal was the right cure which Apple needed badly in the late 90’s.
Steve started his second tenure by instilling a company wide sense of urgency for the release of iMac. Though he implemented various changes in Apple, it is doubtful if it measures up to the draconian ‘Theory E’ changes that Jack Welch implemented in GE. I consider his actions as more planned and calculated in stopping the decline of Apple and rebuilding its lost glory step by step. We can also observe a trajectory of continuous change in Apple’s new strategy. Its new friendly face towards Microsoft shows that yesterday’s ‘no’ is today’s ‘yes’ in business world.
A very important factor that has contributed greatly to Apple’s phenomenal success in recent years is its ability to cash in on the digital wave. This has helped Apple to become a pioneer in consumer electronics market. With Steve navigating it, Apple has carved a niche for itself in the fledgling digital scenario. IPod and iPhone have become legendary and nothing can ever hope to displace them unless it is another Apple product.
Steve Jobs is a self – proclaimed maverick who delights in steering Apple from success to success. I strongly believe Apple could not have come back so strongly without Steve Jobs. I esteem Steve Jobs for his pioneering vision and innovative ideas. He has the foresight to see where things are headed to, and has the power to put his plans into action. And maybe sometimes it takes a task master to make the herd take the leap of faith.
Though personally I might not want to work for a task master like Steve, from a distant prospective, he looks admirable. It will be interesting to see where Steve heads Apple to in the coming years.
Apple Inc is as unique as its products. Apple has a very meager market share compared to the other titans in the industry, but that does not in anyway shrink its relevance in the industry. Apple is an extension of Steve's personality and there is no doubt that Steve Jobs gave Apple a second life.
References
1. Richard Luecke, (2003) Managing Change and Transition: Harvard Business Essentials, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
2. Steve Jobs: Return of the king; Tobi Elkin, Joan Voight. Brandweek. New York: Oct 12, 1998. Vol. 39, Iss. 38; pg. S40, 4 pgs
3. The second coming of Apple; David Kirkpatrick. Fortune. New York: Nov 9, 1998. Vol. 138, Iss. 9; pg. 86, 5 pgs
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Reflection - Gints Salaks
Reflection – Gints Salaks
Every day we go to work, to school, shopping and don’t even realize how much our environment changes. We pass by so many structures and assume that they don’t change, but reality is that everything in our lives change, but the only difference is that we decide at what speed the shutter clicks. The same can be applied to the companies. When you are within the organization, it seems that processes don’t change fast enough and you just find out about the change from outside source – like newspapers and TV. For the past 6 month, I have been doing my internship and have noticed some change within my organization, but the speed of change within seems much slower than seeing it from the outside. We are so used to the surrounding environment that only when something big happens, we say “Ahh, what a change!”
The authors John P. Kotter and Dan S. Cohen in “The Hearts of Change” have many great points in their book, but what I would like to add or suggest is that organizational change should start not at the top of the company as the authors usually indicate, but from the bottom, the work bee level. Many employees of large corporations have outlived their hirers and CEOs and have experienced many so called “transitions”. Many C-level executes have come in as raging bulls and have left the company as quick as they came, but changes have been left hanging in the air. Personally, I would like to see statistics of how many companies have failed on their change management, but I believe that there are more unsuccessful transformations than there are successful ones.
After reading book “The Heart of Changes”, I came to many conclusions and in many cases I have to disagree with the author’s point of view. Even though the book was astonishingly well written, it lacked some deeper understanding of what causes the change and who is the actual work bee of change. In 99% of stories, the book addresses the heroism of the CEO, upper manager or the company’s founder, but let’s not forget that in many cases the change is caused by the everyday worker. Even though the workers are often uninformed about the future vision of the company or direction, they are the true movers towards that goal and they deal directly with the change. I would like to compare that to a war – soldiers are in front, directly engaging the generals and seeing the true war while generals are cozy sitting in their bunkers and directing them were to strike.
Everyday we can observe in the news that some union or organization goes to strike. Or about how product gets recalled or somebody gets food poisoning. The question is: Why was it there in the first place? Usually C-level execute comes in front of the TV and says that he will do anything to change his organization and make it better so that this doesn’t happen again. I noticed from in-class discussions that many CEOs are simply too busy traveling, creating new networks, selling the products and spend less time looking at the organization itself. Many times “work bee’s” voices, opinions, suggestions get ignored and forgotten. But when the real problem comes up, the CEO or someone from management is ready to step in and change the organization.
Today many modern and open-minded companies have shifted their behaviors and do implements management of change. They do listen to their employees and apply bottom up structure, but it doesn’t happen quick enough. Large corporations are less agile to change because it takes more power to start the wheels. Where smaller enterprises are quicker to adapt to the demand and change more frequently and effectively. Every company once was small and agile, but when it rose to the top, it got too big and sluggish, as the result, they make customers change rather than changing itself.
Every day we go to work, to school, shopping and don’t even realize how much our environment changes. We pass by so many structures and assume that they don’t change, but reality is that everything in our lives change, but the only difference is that we decide at what speed the shutter clicks. The same can be applied to the companies. When you are within the organization, it seems that processes don’t change fast enough and you just find out about the change from outside source – like newspapers and TV. For the past 6 month, I have been doing my internship and have noticed some change within my organization, but the speed of change within seems much slower than seeing it from the outside. We are so used to the surrounding environment that only when something big happens, we say “Ahh, what a change!”
The authors John P. Kotter and Dan S. Cohen in “The Hearts of Change” have many great points in their book, but what I would like to add or suggest is that organizational change should start not at the top of the company as the authors usually indicate, but from the bottom, the work bee level. Many employees of large corporations have outlived their hirers and CEOs and have experienced many so called “transitions”. Many C-level executes have come in as raging bulls and have left the company as quick as they came, but changes have been left hanging in the air. Personally, I would like to see statistics of how many companies have failed on their change management, but I believe that there are more unsuccessful transformations than there are successful ones.
After reading book “The Heart of Changes”, I came to many conclusions and in many cases I have to disagree with the author’s point of view. Even though the book was astonishingly well written, it lacked some deeper understanding of what causes the change and who is the actual work bee of change. In 99% of stories, the book addresses the heroism of the CEO, upper manager or the company’s founder, but let’s not forget that in many cases the change is caused by the everyday worker. Even though the workers are often uninformed about the future vision of the company or direction, they are the true movers towards that goal and they deal directly with the change. I would like to compare that to a war – soldiers are in front, directly engaging the generals and seeing the true war while generals are cozy sitting in their bunkers and directing them were to strike.
Everyday we can observe in the news that some union or organization goes to strike. Or about how product gets recalled or somebody gets food poisoning. The question is: Why was it there in the first place? Usually C-level execute comes in front of the TV and says that he will do anything to change his organization and make it better so that this doesn’t happen again. I noticed from in-class discussions that many CEOs are simply too busy traveling, creating new networks, selling the products and spend less time looking at the organization itself. Many times “work bee’s” voices, opinions, suggestions get ignored and forgotten. But when the real problem comes up, the CEO or someone from management is ready to step in and change the organization.
Today many modern and open-minded companies have shifted their behaviors and do implements management of change. They do listen to their employees and apply bottom up structure, but it doesn’t happen quick enough. Large corporations are less agile to change because it takes more power to start the wheels. Where smaller enterprises are quicker to adapt to the demand and change more frequently and effectively. Every company once was small and agile, but when it rose to the top, it got too big and sluggish, as the result, they make customers change rather than changing itself.
Reflection - Annie Wolf Mendoza
On Friday November 3rd Becca posted a reflection. In her reflection she made reference to an article I found at the beginning of the quarter. I saw the title and thought it looked interesting, so I passed it on to her. However, I didn’t actually read it myself until just a few days ago. While I found the article interesting, I didn’t find it very powerful or exceedingly useful. The author just barely scratched the surface of a topic to which I feel she could make some important contributions.
The article is called The Three Keys to a Successful Change by (retired) Colonel Kimberly Olson. Colonel Olson discusses her experience in the United States Air Force, which began at a time when legislation had been recently passed forcing numerous branches of the military to open positions to women. Throughout her career she has come up against innumerous barriers. One of her commanders even told her flat out that he believed she had no business in the military, much less serving in the Air Force. She explains the cultural change that occurred in the Air Force due to the new legislation and how she made the best of a frustrating situation. Through her discussion of the change, she identifies what she believes are the three key elements to successful change.
The first element Colonel Olson identifies is ‘encirclement’. Encirclement means surrounding oneself with people who will be supportive no matter what. She emphasizes the need for diversity in this “circle”, explaining that people from different backgrounds have different ideas, ideas that may not be apparent in a group of people with similar backgrounds. The second element is ‘empowerment’. Colonel Olson explains that it is important to empower oneself as well as those in lower levels in the organization. She says that until those in lower levels have the power to make decisions, change will not occur successfully. The last element is ‘engagement’. Engagement refers to how much energy, time, and effort is put into the change process. She warns that too much or too little engagement can be the demise of a successful change process.
For the most part I think Colonel Olson’s three key elements are important and well thought out, and she does fairly well describing them and their importance in her article. However, I found her arguments somewhat vague and in many places she used examples that didn’t fit very well into her arguments. For example, in her discussion of empowerment she says, “we didn’t want to just open doors for women in the military, we wanted to take them off the hinges. Military women empowered themselves”. She follows that quote by identifying the need to empower those in lower levels; to give them the power to make decisions and to delegate responsibilities. She doesn’t talk about how a leader empowers herself which is something she highlights as being an important part of any successful change.
Another aspect of the article that I felt greatly weakened its value is the lack of cited references. In the beginning she throws out a statistic, saying that seven out of every ten entrepreneurs are women. Towards the end of the article she asks, “Is this why women handle change better, because they understand and appreciate the balance of a hands-on approach with a light touch?”. I am not trying to argue that her statements aren’t true, they very well may be true, however without a credible reference they are greatly weakened.
When I first found this article and saw the title I thought it would be useful. When I saw that it was written by a woman Colonel with 25 years of experience, a lot of which includes leadership experience in a field known for major change, I thought it would be a really valuable and interesting article, especially for me; a woman interested in pursuing a career in leadership. Unfortunately I did not find it to be what I had hoped and actually ended up feeling rather irritated with the author. In today’s world there are just as many opportunities for women as there are for men, but I think most women would agree that prejudice still exists and that women sometimes have to work much harder than men to achieve the same goals. If the author is going to make statements about the accomplishments and inherent talents of women, she should provide a reference, that way when someone wants to defend her position about the superiority of women as change agents[*] she will have a source to back up her statement.
References
Olson, K. (2007, July/August). The three keys to a successful change. Women in Business, 8-12
[*] This is what the author believes. For the record, I do not hold the same opinion. I don’t believe gender is a determining factor in good change agents.
The article is called The Three Keys to a Successful Change by (retired) Colonel Kimberly Olson. Colonel Olson discusses her experience in the United States Air Force, which began at a time when legislation had been recently passed forcing numerous branches of the military to open positions to women. Throughout her career she has come up against innumerous barriers. One of her commanders even told her flat out that he believed she had no business in the military, much less serving in the Air Force. She explains the cultural change that occurred in the Air Force due to the new legislation and how she made the best of a frustrating situation. Through her discussion of the change, she identifies what she believes are the three key elements to successful change.
The first element Colonel Olson identifies is ‘encirclement’. Encirclement means surrounding oneself with people who will be supportive no matter what. She emphasizes the need for diversity in this “circle”, explaining that people from different backgrounds have different ideas, ideas that may not be apparent in a group of people with similar backgrounds. The second element is ‘empowerment’. Colonel Olson explains that it is important to empower oneself as well as those in lower levels in the organization. She says that until those in lower levels have the power to make decisions, change will not occur successfully. The last element is ‘engagement’. Engagement refers to how much energy, time, and effort is put into the change process. She warns that too much or too little engagement can be the demise of a successful change process.
For the most part I think Colonel Olson’s three key elements are important and well thought out, and she does fairly well describing them and their importance in her article. However, I found her arguments somewhat vague and in many places she used examples that didn’t fit very well into her arguments. For example, in her discussion of empowerment she says, “we didn’t want to just open doors for women in the military, we wanted to take them off the hinges. Military women empowered themselves”. She follows that quote by identifying the need to empower those in lower levels; to give them the power to make decisions and to delegate responsibilities. She doesn’t talk about how a leader empowers herself which is something she highlights as being an important part of any successful change.
Another aspect of the article that I felt greatly weakened its value is the lack of cited references. In the beginning she throws out a statistic, saying that seven out of every ten entrepreneurs are women. Towards the end of the article she asks, “Is this why women handle change better, because they understand and appreciate the balance of a hands-on approach with a light touch?”. I am not trying to argue that her statements aren’t true, they very well may be true, however without a credible reference they are greatly weakened.
When I first found this article and saw the title I thought it would be useful. When I saw that it was written by a woman Colonel with 25 years of experience, a lot of which includes leadership experience in a field known for major change, I thought it would be a really valuable and interesting article, especially for me; a woman interested in pursuing a career in leadership. Unfortunately I did not find it to be what I had hoped and actually ended up feeling rather irritated with the author. In today’s world there are just as many opportunities for women as there are for men, but I think most women would agree that prejudice still exists and that women sometimes have to work much harder than men to achieve the same goals. If the author is going to make statements about the accomplishments and inherent talents of women, she should provide a reference, that way when someone wants to defend her position about the superiority of women as change agents[*] she will have a source to back up her statement.
References
Olson, K. (2007, July/August). The three keys to a successful change. Women in Business, 8-12
[*] This is what the author believes. For the record, I do not hold the same opinion. I don’t believe gender is a determining factor in good change agents.
Reflection - Kate Bogh
Realities of Change Agents
While reading Facilities of Change I was thinking about what it takes to create change in the workplace. In many workplaces, any deviation from the normal work tasks, schedules and behaviors is considered inappropriate during work hours. There are some work places where the environment is so controlled that being a change agent is unrealistic. In other situations, people do not generate ideas they just do their jobs and leave as soon as they can at the end of the day genuinely relieved to leave the office. In still other situations, idea generation is squelched as soon as it is shared thus hindering any possibility of future idea generation. Change agents start with ideas or problem recognition. In some environments change agents cannot survive much less influence change.
I am always impressed with people that find ways to be change agents while conforming to environments that do not allow change. I wrote a paper last quarter on BestBuy and how a manager and a few of his team members presented a case for agile project management to executives. They were told that their ideas would not work, could not be tested and would not be implemented. After the meeting, in a daring move, the manager decided to quietly implement agility and agile methodologies on his team. Within months productivity had risen dramatically, customer and employee satisfaction was higher. The benefits were too good to be ignored and it was not long before execs noticed the changes. Soon BestBuy increased the number of agile teams and started to look at the possibility of organizational agility. Really, anyone can be a change agent. Sometimes it involves a certain amount of risk or not giving up too quickly or learning what kind of small changes catch the attention of decision makers.
If you are a potential up and coming manager or you are interested in change management it is important to learn what adds to and detracts from a work environment conducive to change. Lots of times, I believe, managers are trying hard to create a good work environment, encourage employees and be good leaders but sometimes they do not realize little things that detract from productivity, idea generation, change and employee satisfaction.
I have to recommend a fantastic read I just finished titled, Zapp! The Lightning of Empowerment by William C. Byham. Actually, I have some personal history with this book. When I was 9 or 10 years old, my Dad, who worked for GE, was seeking to move up in the company. There had been some recent organizational change and he was moving through it well. In a management seminar my Dad was asked to read Zapp!.At home my sister and I always got a bedtime story. As the older kids, my Dad read to us from chapter books and Mom read kids books to the other kids. (Now you can see how I turned out to be such an angel ;) Anyway, my Dad killed two birds with one stone by reading Zapp to us. I loved the book and during the day, when everyone was busy I would sneak the book and read ahead to the next chapter to see what was going to happen. (Okay, so not totally angelic, but close.) I was recently thinking about the book, in relation to our class and picked it up again. I finished the short read 200 pgs large font, in 2 hours and really enjoyed it. This time though, I understand the points rather than just the story.
The book reads like a story about a manager who, seeing success in another department, wants to translate it to his own work area but it takes a lot of change and effort on his part. One of his employees acts a change agent who can see behind the scenes into what works and what doesn’t. The manager learns about Zapps! which, when deployed, energize and motivate employees while Sapps¡ deplete employee motivation and moral. Readers come away with a list of managerial do’s and don’ts when working with individuals and teams. It all seems simplistic but the pointers are very specific and things I would never have considered like actual specific examples of how to increase employee morale, self-esteem and presence in the work place.
This book really is a fun, must read for anyone interested in change management. After a quick search of Amazon there are a number of very inexpensive used copies available. I got mine for $3.00. If you are planning to be a manager, change agent, co-worker or peer, this book is a must read. It is important to get these concepts ingrained now to encourage a smooth transition into the work place once we get there.
Byham, William. Zapp! The Lightning of Empowerment: How to Improve Productivity, Quality, and Employee Satisfaction. 1997.
BusinessWeek. (2006). Smashing the Clock. [Online Serial]. Availablehttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_50/b4013001.htmHeller, Robert. Management Agility. Edward de Bono & Robert Heller'sThinking Managers. [Online Serial]. Availablehttp://www.thinkingmanagers.com/management/agile.php
While reading Facilities of Change I was thinking about what it takes to create change in the workplace. In many workplaces, any deviation from the normal work tasks, schedules and behaviors is considered inappropriate during work hours. There are some work places where the environment is so controlled that being a change agent is unrealistic. In other situations, people do not generate ideas they just do their jobs and leave as soon as they can at the end of the day genuinely relieved to leave the office. In still other situations, idea generation is squelched as soon as it is shared thus hindering any possibility of future idea generation. Change agents start with ideas or problem recognition. In some environments change agents cannot survive much less influence change.
I am always impressed with people that find ways to be change agents while conforming to environments that do not allow change. I wrote a paper last quarter on BestBuy and how a manager and a few of his team members presented a case for agile project management to executives. They were told that their ideas would not work, could not be tested and would not be implemented. After the meeting, in a daring move, the manager decided to quietly implement agility and agile methodologies on his team. Within months productivity had risen dramatically, customer and employee satisfaction was higher. The benefits were too good to be ignored and it was not long before execs noticed the changes. Soon BestBuy increased the number of agile teams and started to look at the possibility of organizational agility. Really, anyone can be a change agent. Sometimes it involves a certain amount of risk or not giving up too quickly or learning what kind of small changes catch the attention of decision makers.
If you are a potential up and coming manager or you are interested in change management it is important to learn what adds to and detracts from a work environment conducive to change. Lots of times, I believe, managers are trying hard to create a good work environment, encourage employees and be good leaders but sometimes they do not realize little things that detract from productivity, idea generation, change and employee satisfaction.
I have to recommend a fantastic read I just finished titled, Zapp! The Lightning of Empowerment by William C. Byham. Actually, I have some personal history with this book. When I was 9 or 10 years old, my Dad, who worked for GE, was seeking to move up in the company. There had been some recent organizational change and he was moving through it well. In a management seminar my Dad was asked to read Zapp!.At home my sister and I always got a bedtime story. As the older kids, my Dad read to us from chapter books and Mom read kids books to the other kids. (Now you can see how I turned out to be such an angel ;) Anyway, my Dad killed two birds with one stone by reading Zapp to us. I loved the book and during the day, when everyone was busy I would sneak the book and read ahead to the next chapter to see what was going to happen. (Okay, so not totally angelic, but close.) I was recently thinking about the book, in relation to our class and picked it up again. I finished the short read 200 pgs large font, in 2 hours and really enjoyed it. This time though, I understand the points rather than just the story.
The book reads like a story about a manager who, seeing success in another department, wants to translate it to his own work area but it takes a lot of change and effort on his part. One of his employees acts a change agent who can see behind the scenes into what works and what doesn’t. The manager learns about Zapps! which, when deployed, energize and motivate employees while Sapps¡ deplete employee motivation and moral. Readers come away with a list of managerial do’s and don’ts when working with individuals and teams. It all seems simplistic but the pointers are very specific and things I would never have considered like actual specific examples of how to increase employee morale, self-esteem and presence in the work place.
This book really is a fun, must read for anyone interested in change management. After a quick search of Amazon there are a number of very inexpensive used copies available. I got mine for $3.00. If you are planning to be a manager, change agent, co-worker or peer, this book is a must read. It is important to get these concepts ingrained now to encourage a smooth transition into the work place once we get there.
Byham, William. Zapp! The Lightning of Empowerment: How to Improve Productivity, Quality, and Employee Satisfaction. 1997.
BusinessWeek. (2006). Smashing the Clock. [Online Serial]. Availablehttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_50/b4013001.htmHeller, Robert. Management Agility. Edward de Bono & Robert Heller'sThinking Managers. [Online Serial]. Availablehttp://www.thinkingmanagers.com/management/agile.php
Reflection - Sowjanya Kodidala
This reflection, The Managers, talks about my job experience. In the previous classes of this course, we have talked a lot about managers. I thought of sharing my initial experiences with managers. I first interacted with managers when joined as a software trainee in a software firm while doing my undergraduate studies. I was trained on information technology skills. The main part of this reflection focuses on the way I was treated by managers.
The first day of my job as a software trainee, my program manager, Ravi asked me whether I was interested in becoming a developer or tester. I was very new to the software field as my background was Electronics and Instrumentation. I could not decide which would best fit for my career. So my program manager decided that I will be trained on both, developing and testing skills for six months. According to him, after six months I can decide in which I am interested and then concentrate on that particular field. So I was working under two mangers, Arun and Anil. Arun was directing me about testing and administering skills. Anil was directing me about developing skills.
I was taking classes on database, SQL server and testing tools in the morning from 6 to 8 A.M, and on developing languages, C++ and .NET classes from 5 to 7 P.M. In between my office hours were 9 A.M to 6 P.M. Arun was training me for testing tools and creating database. I had to report him on a daily basis. He would give me work based on the topics I learned everyday. He asked me to solve real examples using the techniques I learnt. He also requested other employees to explain me about the current project.
Anil used to check on my learning and developing programming languages. I took C++ and .NET classes simultaneously. Anil used to ask me to give a presentation on the topics I learnt every day. Initially Anil used to allocate 30 min after lunch hours. We both used to sit and he used to ask me questions after I present. Later after a week he asked me to present in front of all trainees so that they can also learn and he always used to say that he will give real world examples but he never did. After few weeks he started to come to my cubicle, he used to check what I was doing. He later asked me to come on week ends to have more practical experience. I did that for three weeks.
Arun noticed that I was more interested in testing tools and asked one of the company's lead testers to guide me. His name was Murthy. So I was finally assisted by three people. The tester was kind enough and gave me work for half day and the allocated half day to explore myself. Murthy used to clear my doubts immediately and every Friday he used to ask me few questions on what I learnt and what I explored on my own. Later Anil changed my office cubicle right in front of his cubicle.
In between all this every week on Monday I was supposed to meet my Program Manager and tell him my status and also about the issues if I had any.
Finally I had learnt SQL server, C, C++ and .NET in six months. After my struggle for six months in an IT company I decided that I am not going to work either as a developer or tester. From the day one I did not like the idea of reporting to my boss. Knowing about my skills and my goals were to start up my own company. After doing some research I felt that I need more knowledge about managing an organization. I decided to get a masters degree in management and I had to leave my work as I needed time to prepare for GRE.
So finally I am here in UW doing my masters in information management, trying to improvise my skills for putting up a company. J
I would think the behavior of the managers is uncontrollable but I suggest all the managers need to be trained on the different ways to treat their employees. By training these skills they could turn to great managers who would liked by all employees.
The first day of my job as a software trainee, my program manager, Ravi asked me whether I was interested in becoming a developer or tester. I was very new to the software field as my background was Electronics and Instrumentation. I could not decide which would best fit for my career. So my program manager decided that I will be trained on both, developing and testing skills for six months. According to him, after six months I can decide in which I am interested and then concentrate on that particular field. So I was working under two mangers, Arun and Anil. Arun was directing me about testing and administering skills. Anil was directing me about developing skills.
I was taking classes on database, SQL server and testing tools in the morning from 6 to 8 A.M, and on developing languages, C++ and .NET classes from 5 to 7 P.M. In between my office hours were 9 A.M to 6 P.M. Arun was training me for testing tools and creating database. I had to report him on a daily basis. He would give me work based on the topics I learned everyday. He asked me to solve real examples using the techniques I learnt. He also requested other employees to explain me about the current project.
Anil used to check on my learning and developing programming languages. I took C++ and .NET classes simultaneously. Anil used to ask me to give a presentation on the topics I learnt every day. Initially Anil used to allocate 30 min after lunch hours. We both used to sit and he used to ask me questions after I present. Later after a week he asked me to present in front of all trainees so that they can also learn and he always used to say that he will give real world examples but he never did. After few weeks he started to come to my cubicle, he used to check what I was doing. He later asked me to come on week ends to have more practical experience. I did that for three weeks.
Arun noticed that I was more interested in testing tools and asked one of the company's lead testers to guide me. His name was Murthy. So I was finally assisted by three people. The tester was kind enough and gave me work for half day and the allocated half day to explore myself. Murthy used to clear my doubts immediately and every Friday he used to ask me few questions on what I learnt and what I explored on my own. Later Anil changed my office cubicle right in front of his cubicle.
In between all this every week on Monday I was supposed to meet my Program Manager and tell him my status and also about the issues if I had any.
Finally I had learnt SQL server, C, C++ and .NET in six months. After my struggle for six months in an IT company I decided that I am not going to work either as a developer or tester. From the day one I did not like the idea of reporting to my boss. Knowing about my skills and my goals were to start up my own company. After doing some research I felt that I need more knowledge about managing an organization. I decided to get a masters degree in management and I had to leave my work as I needed time to prepare for GRE.
So finally I am here in UW doing my masters in information management, trying to improvise my skills for putting up a company. J
I would think the behavior of the managers is uncontrollable but I suggest all the managers need to be trained on the different ways to treat their employees. By training these skills they could turn to great managers who would liked by all employees.
Reflection - Shan Zhao
“Digital Natives” at work place
At the I3M Symposium (see http://www.ischool.washington.edu/i3m) last week, I had an opportunity to participate in a series of interesting discussions about “digital natives” and their impacts to workplace. What is “digital native”? According to the definition on Wikipedia, a digital native is a person who has grown up with digital technology such as computers, the Internet, mobile phones and MP3. Those who grew up without digital technology but adopted it later are digital immigrant[1].
I consider myself on the edge of the digital native group as I first touched a computer in elementary school, and have grown up with it since then. Now I extensively use digital technologies, but not a big fan of them. I use cell phone, but rarely text messaging. I’m on FaceBook, but not very active. Comparing my digital behavior with my classmates and with other people around me, it’s clear that people have different comfort level with new technologies. In workplaces, however, people are often required to adopt a new IT tool at the same time with same amount of training. It may be a piece of cake for some people, but a daunting challenge for some others. I experienced this discrepancy among the employees during my internship. While I was setting up the SharePoint site for a company, some people were very enthusiastic about it and thought it’s cool. But on the other side, some employees were still not comfortable using computers, and a bit intimidated by the new system. So the question is: as change agents in IT projects, how should we accommodate people with different acceptance to technology, to bring everybody on board eventually?
To begin with, we can’t just assume or pretend everybody in the company have similar attitude to IT. It sounds like common sense, but people often make this mistake. We need to acknowledge the difference, and address it. Some people prefer to jump into the water and learn swimming, while others may prefer receiving instructions first, and then tap into the water slowly. Extra support should be provided for those who can’t make the adjustment easily. Having a training plan that has a variety of training methods will allow employees to choose their ways of learning. We could also identify the representatives of the group, and spend time working with them specifically, so that they would be less intimidated and defensive. In addition, if we could achieve “buy in” from this group and transfer them to the early adopters, it would send signal to other employees and facilitate the change process.
In the discussion, we talked about some very interesting scenarios that could raise serious concerns in organizations. Below are some sample scenarios:
· A digital native wants to use FaceBook and LinkedIn at work to involve in professional community
· A new digital native employee wants to use the instant message at work that was blocked earlier in the company
· A digital native borrow code from online resources to solve his/her problems at work
· A digital native wants to set up a wiki so s/he can be connected with old classmates doing similar works at different organizations, and help each other with their jobs.
All these scenarios are practical stories happening today, and will happen increasingly in the future. But at this moment, we are still fuzzy at the boundary. Concerns include company image (does the person on Facebook represent the person him/herself, or the company), company privacy (how to make sure company secret will not leak), plagiarism (can we use the borrowed code in our own product?), training (how to train the next generation of employees to be cautious about the above issues?)
Today, most of the organizations are a blend of digital natives and digital immigrants, and the “non-digitals”. What will happen in 10 year when the employees are mostly digital natives? Will the organizational structure change? Will the business process change? These are some interesting questions to think about….
[1] Digital Native, wikipedia, accessed Nov. 17th, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_native
At the I3M Symposium (see http://www.ischool.washington.edu/i3m) last week, I had an opportunity to participate in a series of interesting discussions about “digital natives” and their impacts to workplace. What is “digital native”? According to the definition on Wikipedia, a digital native is a person who has grown up with digital technology such as computers, the Internet, mobile phones and MP3. Those who grew up without digital technology but adopted it later are digital immigrant[1].
I consider myself on the edge of the digital native group as I first touched a computer in elementary school, and have grown up with it since then. Now I extensively use digital technologies, but not a big fan of them. I use cell phone, but rarely text messaging. I’m on FaceBook, but not very active. Comparing my digital behavior with my classmates and with other people around me, it’s clear that people have different comfort level with new technologies. In workplaces, however, people are often required to adopt a new IT tool at the same time with same amount of training. It may be a piece of cake for some people, but a daunting challenge for some others. I experienced this discrepancy among the employees during my internship. While I was setting up the SharePoint site for a company, some people were very enthusiastic about it and thought it’s cool. But on the other side, some employees were still not comfortable using computers, and a bit intimidated by the new system. So the question is: as change agents in IT projects, how should we accommodate people with different acceptance to technology, to bring everybody on board eventually?
To begin with, we can’t just assume or pretend everybody in the company have similar attitude to IT. It sounds like common sense, but people often make this mistake. We need to acknowledge the difference, and address it. Some people prefer to jump into the water and learn swimming, while others may prefer receiving instructions first, and then tap into the water slowly. Extra support should be provided for those who can’t make the adjustment easily. Having a training plan that has a variety of training methods will allow employees to choose their ways of learning. We could also identify the representatives of the group, and spend time working with them specifically, so that they would be less intimidated and defensive. In addition, if we could achieve “buy in” from this group and transfer them to the early adopters, it would send signal to other employees and facilitate the change process.
In the discussion, we talked about some very interesting scenarios that could raise serious concerns in organizations. Below are some sample scenarios:
· A digital native wants to use FaceBook and LinkedIn at work to involve in professional community
· A new digital native employee wants to use the instant message at work that was blocked earlier in the company
· A digital native borrow code from online resources to solve his/her problems at work
· A digital native wants to set up a wiki so s/he can be connected with old classmates doing similar works at different organizations, and help each other with their jobs.
All these scenarios are practical stories happening today, and will happen increasingly in the future. But at this moment, we are still fuzzy at the boundary. Concerns include company image (does the person on Facebook represent the person him/herself, or the company), company privacy (how to make sure company secret will not leak), plagiarism (can we use the borrowed code in our own product?), training (how to train the next generation of employees to be cautious about the above issues?)
Today, most of the organizations are a blend of digital natives and digital immigrants, and the “non-digitals”. What will happen in 10 year when the employees are mostly digital natives? Will the organizational structure change? Will the business process change? These are some interesting questions to think about….
[1] Digital Native, wikipedia, accessed Nov. 17th, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_native
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Reflection - Sinsath Shameer
Is it possible to say if a particular change management initiative was a success or a failure?
Throughout this course, we have been exploring change management in depth and have been analyzing change management based on real world experience. One interesting fact that I noticed is that it is really difficult to say if a change management initiative was a success or a failure based on the immediate outcome. Sometimes what seems like a success comes with its own package of side effects and sometimes a change management that was perceived as a failure happens to be a success in a period of time. What you can say is that this particular initiative was a success or a failure for this particular period of time since it’s really hard to understand the future implications of any initiative. It is also a matter of bringing your own perspective and how this change management initiative affects you personally.
Hence it is best for an outsider of the company to analyze the event from a fresh and unbiased perspective. We had extensively researched on ‘Apple’ for our term paper. It is one of the best examples of change in an organization. Both the changes that Apple had to go through with the firing of Steve Jobs and later bringing him back to the company after many years is a successful case of change management as we think of now. Soon after Jobs was fired in 1989, Apple stocks went up and the company did pretty well under John Sculley till 1992.
Sculley then seemed to lose interest in the company with his involvement in politics and had to step down in 1993. Apple had to face many adversities after this and business fared badly. I wonder if the oust of Jobs earlier and making Sculley the CEO would have been interpreted as a failed change management case during this period. I am sure the case would have been analyzed by different people differently. People who were affected badly by the drop in profits would have thought that Jobs shouldn’t have been made to quit but those who had bad relations with Jobs and those who were victims of his abuse wouldn’t have considered the oust of Jobs as a failed change management case no matter what the consequences were. So it all depends on who analyzes the situation; and what is their stand on a particular issue and how it affects them.
Finally when Jobs was brought back into the company, it turned out to be a turning point for Apple and the company has been remarkably growing since then. He seemed to be a much better businessman the second time and also seemed to be a bit more considerate to his employees than before. So now the whole event about ousting of Jobs and making Sculley the CEO seems like a successful case of change management. The events unfolded in a number of years and if this is the end, Apple it’s a happy ending for Apple. But no one can say what future has in hold and it is highly possible that with the new events that might crop up in the journey of Apple; the company will be analyzed in a different way by someone with a different frame of mind.
So in a nutshell, change is a journey and not a destination. Change brings with it various outcomes and you can analyze an event based on the outcomes for a particular period of time. It is highly possible that you will analyze the same change initiative differently with the new outcomes that it produces over the course of several years. A case can be analyzed differently based on the point of time that you are in.
References:
Apple Confidential 2.0: the definitive history of world’s most colorful company, Owen W. Linzmayer, No Starch Press, San Fransisco, California, 2004
Class discussions
Throughout this course, we have been exploring change management in depth and have been analyzing change management based on real world experience. One interesting fact that I noticed is that it is really difficult to say if a change management initiative was a success or a failure based on the immediate outcome. Sometimes what seems like a success comes with its own package of side effects and sometimes a change management that was perceived as a failure happens to be a success in a period of time. What you can say is that this particular initiative was a success or a failure for this particular period of time since it’s really hard to understand the future implications of any initiative. It is also a matter of bringing your own perspective and how this change management initiative affects you personally.
Hence it is best for an outsider of the company to analyze the event from a fresh and unbiased perspective. We had extensively researched on ‘Apple’ for our term paper. It is one of the best examples of change in an organization. Both the changes that Apple had to go through with the firing of Steve Jobs and later bringing him back to the company after many years is a successful case of change management as we think of now. Soon after Jobs was fired in 1989, Apple stocks went up and the company did pretty well under John Sculley till 1992.
Sculley then seemed to lose interest in the company with his involvement in politics and had to step down in 1993. Apple had to face many adversities after this and business fared badly. I wonder if the oust of Jobs earlier and making Sculley the CEO would have been interpreted as a failed change management case during this period. I am sure the case would have been analyzed by different people differently. People who were affected badly by the drop in profits would have thought that Jobs shouldn’t have been made to quit but those who had bad relations with Jobs and those who were victims of his abuse wouldn’t have considered the oust of Jobs as a failed change management case no matter what the consequences were. So it all depends on who analyzes the situation; and what is their stand on a particular issue and how it affects them.
Finally when Jobs was brought back into the company, it turned out to be a turning point for Apple and the company has been remarkably growing since then. He seemed to be a much better businessman the second time and also seemed to be a bit more considerate to his employees than before. So now the whole event about ousting of Jobs and making Sculley the CEO seems like a successful case of change management. The events unfolded in a number of years and if this is the end, Apple it’s a happy ending for Apple. But no one can say what future has in hold and it is highly possible that with the new events that might crop up in the journey of Apple; the company will be analyzed in a different way by someone with a different frame of mind.
So in a nutshell, change is a journey and not a destination. Change brings with it various outcomes and you can analyze an event based on the outcomes for a particular period of time. It is highly possible that you will analyze the same change initiative differently with the new outcomes that it produces over the course of several years. A case can be analyzed differently based on the point of time that you are in.
References:
Apple Confidential 2.0: the definitive history of world’s most colorful company, Owen W. Linzmayer, No Starch Press, San Fransisco, California, 2004
Class discussions
Reflection - Rebecca M Allen
We began the quarter with an assignment to research examples of change management successes and failures. I’ve given a lot of thought to the “how and why” of success but neglected the importance of examining failure. If there’s one truism besides the ongoing certainty of change, it’s the guarantee of failure. Depending on the gravity of the attempted success, failing can be an embarrassing and devastating experience. The topic of change management and some of the frank video cases have given me an opportunity to think about the failures ahead of me, as a practitioner in this field. Although it’s realistic, that line of thought can be overwhelmingly negative with the wrong perspective.
I saw an episode of 20/20 last Friday that introduced me to a different, better perspective.[1] Entrepreneur Sarah Blakely, creator of the women’s apparel company Spanx, described some of her previous failures, from failing the LSAT after a lifetime dream of becoming a lawyer, to persisting with her apparel invention throughout two years of rejection from patent lawyers. Her take on her personal failures sheds light on her ultimate success: “To me, if I wasn’t trying, I would be failing.” Elaine Eisenman, author and academic dean, was also interviewed for the broadcast and further explained the incomparable value of failure:
“Unbroken success doesn’t teach you anything other than the fact that you’re lucky. Failure helps you know who you are. Until you’ve failed, or until you hit adversity, you never had a chance to test yourself before.”
Richard Watson, in his revealing Fast Company article Celebrate Failure, refers to failure as “the proverbial elephant in the boardroom.”[2] Whether it’s organizational or personal, we all do it—many times over—but no one really wants to talk about it. Can you blame us? We’ve all been told at least once that one wrong mistake can ruin our career. This is a lesson that has been learned the hard way from countless professionals. When there is so much at stake, who in their right mind would take a leap of faith and risk failure? And then talk about it? As he says, “[m]ost people believe that success breeds success and…failure breeds failure.” He is right. The common urge is to downplay mistakes and glorify success, lest one appear a contagious loser. What results is stunted learning and an inability to speak with candor about mistakes, and in a professional setting, this can be especially damaging.
One of Watson’s notable tips is to “set a failure target as part of each employee’s annual review.” Blakely has incorporated this refreshing perspective into her management style:
“I have really set up the business to encourage people to fail as well. And I will tell a certain person in a department, ‘What have you failed at lately? What risks have you taken? …I treat everyone as their own entrepreneur’”
Richard Farson and Ralph Keyes would refer to Blakely as a “failure-tolerant leader.” In their HBR article of the same name, they propose that managers view failure not as the opposite of success, but as a step toward success.[3] Utilizing real-life examples to illustrate their points, they also encourage managers to communicate openly about their own mistakes, as this behavior “shows a leader’s self confidence, helps forge closer ties with employees and colleagues,” and makes them “become people whom others can admire and identify with” (p. 69). This is a great way to set the bar for trust in an organization. Lead with action, and others will follow.
In the right organization, creating a safe space for risk-taking and personal growth encourages creativity and adaptability, which fuels innovation. It is well worth speculating that the acceptance of change initiatives will be higher in a culture like this, as well. In an effort to grow a tough hide and stay positive, I know I will definitely think of Sarah Blakely the next time I fall flat on my face (which is sure to be soon).
References
1. If at First You Don’t Succeed…Try, Try Again! http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3870105&page=1
2. http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/innovation/watson/112105.html
3. Farson, R., & Keyes, R. (2002, August). The Failure-Tolerant Leader. Harvard Business Review, 64-71.
I saw an episode of 20/20 last Friday that introduced me to a different, better perspective.[1] Entrepreneur Sarah Blakely, creator of the women’s apparel company Spanx, described some of her previous failures, from failing the LSAT after a lifetime dream of becoming a lawyer, to persisting with her apparel invention throughout two years of rejection from patent lawyers. Her take on her personal failures sheds light on her ultimate success: “To me, if I wasn’t trying, I would be failing.” Elaine Eisenman, author and academic dean, was also interviewed for the broadcast and further explained the incomparable value of failure:
“Unbroken success doesn’t teach you anything other than the fact that you’re lucky. Failure helps you know who you are. Until you’ve failed, or until you hit adversity, you never had a chance to test yourself before.”
Richard Watson, in his revealing Fast Company article Celebrate Failure, refers to failure as “the proverbial elephant in the boardroom.”[2] Whether it’s organizational or personal, we all do it—many times over—but no one really wants to talk about it. Can you blame us? We’ve all been told at least once that one wrong mistake can ruin our career. This is a lesson that has been learned the hard way from countless professionals. When there is so much at stake, who in their right mind would take a leap of faith and risk failure? And then talk about it? As he says, “[m]ost people believe that success breeds success and…failure breeds failure.” He is right. The common urge is to downplay mistakes and glorify success, lest one appear a contagious loser. What results is stunted learning and an inability to speak with candor about mistakes, and in a professional setting, this can be especially damaging.
One of Watson’s notable tips is to “set a failure target as part of each employee’s annual review.” Blakely has incorporated this refreshing perspective into her management style:
“I have really set up the business to encourage people to fail as well. And I will tell a certain person in a department, ‘What have you failed at lately? What risks have you taken? …I treat everyone as their own entrepreneur’”
Richard Farson and Ralph Keyes would refer to Blakely as a “failure-tolerant leader.” In their HBR article of the same name, they propose that managers view failure not as the opposite of success, but as a step toward success.[3] Utilizing real-life examples to illustrate their points, they also encourage managers to communicate openly about their own mistakes, as this behavior “shows a leader’s self confidence, helps forge closer ties with employees and colleagues,” and makes them “become people whom others can admire and identify with” (p. 69). This is a great way to set the bar for trust in an organization. Lead with action, and others will follow.
In the right organization, creating a safe space for risk-taking and personal growth encourages creativity and adaptability, which fuels innovation. It is well worth speculating that the acceptance of change initiatives will be higher in a culture like this, as well. In an effort to grow a tough hide and stay positive, I know I will definitely think of Sarah Blakely the next time I fall flat on my face (which is sure to be soon).
References
1. If at First You Don’t Succeed…Try, Try Again! http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3870105&page=1
2. http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/innovation/watson/112105.html
3. Farson, R., & Keyes, R. (2002, August). The Failure-Tolerant Leader. Harvard Business Review, 64-71.
Reflection - M. Serkan Pektas
Disciplinary Actions
Every organization has to align itself according to the new technology, new trends, and new challenges. Those transitions should be controlled closely to get desired goals. That is why we are trying to manage them. However, there are some incidents in workplaces that trigger changes in different ways. Those uncontrolled transitions may cause some unexpected outcomes that may be resulted in either desired or undesired consequences. For example, the decisions of the executive board about personnel have a great potential to initiate such unintended transitions, because those decisions have an effect on everyone. The most important decisions about personnel are about disciplinary actions. The disciplinary actions have a great effect on employee in different ways. They create fear, urgency, and increase or decrease moral, in short most of the things that we need to manage in transitions.
Since the disciplinary actions have great effect on personnel behavior, they should be considered carefully. The regulations and the culture of the organization set the rules of standard workplace behavior and provide course of actions to enforce those rules. Those rules and regulations allow people to align their behavior according to the company rules. In fact those are the standards that provide everyone to work in peace and harmony. The belief among employee that those enforcement rules are executed without doubt creates those feelings.
However, it should be mentioned that those rules cannot be subject to change or improvement. In fact, they should be revised periodically and changed according to new environment. My point is that those rules should not be changed, and applied without any hesitation, when there is a decision to make according to them. Even if there is a hesitation of applying rules on one personnel, it creates doubts in the others’ mind.
Individuals have a tendency to behave people according to their feelings and personal thoughts, but the organizations, the executive committees, have to behave people according to the rules and regulations. Otherwise, the unintended effects of wrong decisions may trigger uncontrollable and undesired transitions in the organization.
Every organization has to align itself according to the new technology, new trends, and new challenges. Those transitions should be controlled closely to get desired goals. That is why we are trying to manage them. However, there are some incidents in workplaces that trigger changes in different ways. Those uncontrolled transitions may cause some unexpected outcomes that may be resulted in either desired or undesired consequences. For example, the decisions of the executive board about personnel have a great potential to initiate such unintended transitions, because those decisions have an effect on everyone. The most important decisions about personnel are about disciplinary actions. The disciplinary actions have a great effect on employee in different ways. They create fear, urgency, and increase or decrease moral, in short most of the things that we need to manage in transitions.
Since the disciplinary actions have great effect on personnel behavior, they should be considered carefully. The regulations and the culture of the organization set the rules of standard workplace behavior and provide course of actions to enforce those rules. Those rules and regulations allow people to align their behavior according to the company rules. In fact those are the standards that provide everyone to work in peace and harmony. The belief among employee that those enforcement rules are executed without doubt creates those feelings.
However, it should be mentioned that those rules cannot be subject to change or improvement. In fact, they should be revised periodically and changed according to new environment. My point is that those rules should not be changed, and applied without any hesitation, when there is a decision to make according to them. Even if there is a hesitation of applying rules on one personnel, it creates doubts in the others’ mind.
Individuals have a tendency to behave people according to their feelings and personal thoughts, but the organizations, the executive committees, have to behave people according to the rules and regulations. Otherwise, the unintended effects of wrong decisions may trigger uncontrollable and undesired transitions in the organization.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Reflection - Lokesh Ramani
Organizational Policies and Mechanisms
Last week, the class went through a video case study about an architecture firm which had a highly skillful partner who was at the same time perceived as “abusive” by some of the firm’s employees. This critical issue was brought to light to the other partners after a number of employees resigned who were under the direct supervision of this “abusive” partner and specially after a parent of an employee complained about this abusive behavior to another partner at the firm.
I want to discuss about the policy and mechanisms in place that can deal with such situations before it can make a huge impact to an organization. How can organizational policies be effective in dealing with similar situations, when non-compliances have to be reported and deal with, when it originates from an individual who enjoys a position of considerable power and influence? In the video case study, the non-compliance was brought to light by a parent of an employee after several employees had actually left the firm citing reasons other than the behavior of the partner. I strongly assume that some of these resignations might have been consequences of the “abusive” partner’s behavior. However this was never officially reported to the relevant stakeholders in the organization.
I am going to speculate about reasons why this was never reported and asses the policies in place and their respective effectiveness.
Relationship between HR and Management Executives: The common perception about this relationship is that there is not much transparency between the aforementioned stakeholders and the other employees in the lower levels of an organization. This lack of transparency leads to a perception within the other employees that the HR department may not be dependable when certain issues pertaining to individuals of power have to be reported. This is a challenge to overcome and drive a perception among the workforce that the HR have the power to influence changes and are dependable to safeguard the employee’s concerns.
Exit Interviews: These mechanisms have been designed to implement a feedback loop in an organization’s framework to strategically position the workforce in a state better than its previous status. However, the credibility and the lack of independence in the functioning of the HR department forces a major section of the departing workforce to not to report genuine supervisor related concerns. Resigning employees are more interested in not burning the bridges with their former employer rather than reporting the actual problems because they believe this may hamper their developed relations with the organization, due to the perceived incredibility and lack of influence of the HR to address concerns related to individuals of considerable power and influence in an organization.
There must be a change in the role of the HR department in an organization. It must function as an independent unit, free from the pressures of the executive stakeholders, aim to lessen the impact of organizational politics and increase the transparency among all the levels of the organization to render credibility to them. Further, this change in their stance must be well-communicated to the workforce of an organization to encourage employees at all levels to provide constructive feedback, which can be used a corrective mechanism to address concerns and improve the performance of the relevant stakeholders and thereby the organization as a whole.
Last week, the class went through a video case study about an architecture firm which had a highly skillful partner who was at the same time perceived as “abusive” by some of the firm’s employees. This critical issue was brought to light to the other partners after a number of employees resigned who were under the direct supervision of this “abusive” partner and specially after a parent of an employee complained about this abusive behavior to another partner at the firm.
I want to discuss about the policy and mechanisms in place that can deal with such situations before it can make a huge impact to an organization. How can organizational policies be effective in dealing with similar situations, when non-compliances have to be reported and deal with, when it originates from an individual who enjoys a position of considerable power and influence? In the video case study, the non-compliance was brought to light by a parent of an employee after several employees had actually left the firm citing reasons other than the behavior of the partner. I strongly assume that some of these resignations might have been consequences of the “abusive” partner’s behavior. However this was never officially reported to the relevant stakeholders in the organization.
I am going to speculate about reasons why this was never reported and asses the policies in place and their respective effectiveness.
Relationship between HR and Management Executives: The common perception about this relationship is that there is not much transparency between the aforementioned stakeholders and the other employees in the lower levels of an organization. This lack of transparency leads to a perception within the other employees that the HR department may not be dependable when certain issues pertaining to individuals of power have to be reported. This is a challenge to overcome and drive a perception among the workforce that the HR have the power to influence changes and are dependable to safeguard the employee’s concerns.
Exit Interviews: These mechanisms have been designed to implement a feedback loop in an organization’s framework to strategically position the workforce in a state better than its previous status. However, the credibility and the lack of independence in the functioning of the HR department forces a major section of the departing workforce to not to report genuine supervisor related concerns. Resigning employees are more interested in not burning the bridges with their former employer rather than reporting the actual problems because they believe this may hamper their developed relations with the organization, due to the perceived incredibility and lack of influence of the HR to address concerns related to individuals of considerable power and influence in an organization.
There must be a change in the role of the HR department in an organization. It must function as an independent unit, free from the pressures of the executive stakeholders, aim to lessen the impact of organizational politics and increase the transparency among all the levels of the organization to render credibility to them. Further, this change in their stance must be well-communicated to the workforce of an organization to encourage employees at all levels to provide constructive feedback, which can be used a corrective mechanism to address concerns and improve the performance of the relevant stakeholders and thereby the organization as a whole.
Reflection - Manaswita Manaswita
Organizational culture change and communication
Few days back when I was looking for articles and journals online on the “issues faced by global IT projects”, for research paper assignment of IMT588: Project Management course, I came across an interesting article by Josep Burcet Llampayas at http://www.burcet.net/b/cultural_change.htm.
The article was written in 2002 and the article opens with the following statements, “Between 2010 and 2025 the conditions for a big cultural change will be met. This will happen as a result of the current communication revolution.” The author anticipated it right and this article can be used to make judgments and see where we are heading as far as the cultural change in organizations is concerned. As we are proceeding towards 2010, are individuals, organizations, countries getting close to the “cultural impact due to the communication revolution” that Josep Burcet has mentioned in his paper?
It’s true that development in communication and technology brought about a radical change in the way the organizations conduct their business today and in their culture as well. However, I don’t think that it would be true to give credit to only one factor i.e., communication for enforcing change. Innovation and change has always been a continuous process since the pre historic age. One reason why we, Homo sapiens are considered superior because we are blessed with finest of the brains that can invent and has the ability to implement and adapt to the changes. Some might consider creation of wheel as the most important invention of mankind and others might view electricity or internet or technology as the factors that revolutionized the world. The fact is that everything is related to each other, every invention and every change that takes place.
The change management class has definitely made me realize and understand one thing that I consider important- change is a cycle, which can either be vicious or virtuous. The point to consider is that it is a cycle- one particular change, whether it is change in structure, process, culture, means of communication, revamp in the governmental or organizational strategies or social, technology, economic or political changes- each kind of change has the ability to push change in the another domain.
Josep Burcet succinctly points out “after 2010 we may expect that humankind will need to absorb a huge amount of novelty in a very short period of time. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people may not be able to handle it.”
It’s true that there are companies, which are scared of expanding business abroad because they resist adapting to the cultural divide and the management systems overseas. Their fear is reasonable as cultural differences of the employees are the most critical topic of concern these days that most of the global managers face in a multi national organizations. The companies hire resources from across the globe, people from different ethics and religions and the net result is fusion of varied cultures in the organization. Companies hire highly skilled resources from the global market and every country has its own customs, local market and business trends, religions, rituals, work culture and norms, social and organization structures etc that its nationals have been following since a long time back and it is not reasonable to expect from them to follow and understand all the cultural differences at the very first instance. Effective communication plays an important role in the interlinked global organizations.
“Ultimately, it boils down to a few areas: cultural gaps, lack of trust in each other, failure to value each other's skills, and the big one: We just don't communicate effectively.” (http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/may2007/ca20070530_521679.htm?chan=search)
Failure to understand the language adds to the issue. George Bernard Shaw said "The British and Americans are divided by a common language". Even though America and Britain has English as their official language, the spelling, pronunciation and sometimes meanings of the phrase change. For eg., 11th June 1998 is written as 11/06/98 in UK style but becomes 06/11/98 in USA style, globalisation becomes globalization etc.
In spite of the communication and language viewed as the prominent roadblocks that catapult the cross cultural issues in the organizations, companies cross the borders to do business with each other and are pushing the change across the globe. Mergers and acquisitions are the best tool to bring about change in the organizational culture.
Differences in regional culture are the deep-seated roots that make it difficult to materialize changes in the organizational culture. “Organizational culture is similar to, say, regional culture. The same person in different organizations (or parts of the same organization) would act in different ways.” (http://www.toolpack.com/culture.html). Thus, it is a huge challenge to communicate cultural change in the organization. An article published in Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_05/b4019058.htm?chan=search), on Siemens titled “Siemens’ Cultural Clash” is about how CEO Klaus Kleinfeld’s idea to implement cultural changes in Siemens is not appreciated by his employees. His challenge is to communicate the change to his engineers in 11 business units operating as separate entities with their own corporate culture. Employees resisted change that he wanted to implement and when he opened his blog for his employees to share their views and to facilitate open communication one of the employees wrote “I used to feel good in the Siemens family. But there's not much of that feeling left." (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_05/b4019058.htm?chan=search).
Kleinfeld is fluent in both German and English, knows that language is the hindrance that needs to be overcome in order to put the cultural change into operation. He has made it mandatory for his employees to speak in English, which is met with resistance. Employees also find it hard to match to the high level energy of their boss because according to them gets too demanding, when it comes to meeting his goals and his believes in the culture that he wants to implement in Siemens . He said “We commit to something, and we deliver. That is the culture we want to form." (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_05/b4019058.htm?chan=search).
The presence of a strong leader is important in an organization to make it change because cultural change is always met with resistance. It is difficult to make the people change their norms, views and believes and it takes sometimes more than three years to achieve that goal. Klienfeld is the embodiment of that strong leader for Siemens
References:
1. Burcet Llampayas, Josep. 2002. Cultural Change. http://www.burcet.net/b/cultural_change.htm. Retrieved on November, 17, 2007.
2. Toolpack Consulting. Organizational Consulting. http://www.toolpack.com/culture.html Retrieved on November, 17, 2007.
3. Siemens’ Culture Clash. 2007. Retrieved on November, 17, 2007 from Information Week. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_05/b4019058.htm?chan=search
Few days back when I was looking for articles and journals online on the “issues faced by global IT projects”, for research paper assignment of IMT588: Project Management course, I came across an interesting article by Josep Burcet Llampayas at http://www.burcet.net/b/cultural_change.htm.
The article was written in 2002 and the article opens with the following statements, “Between 2010 and 2025 the conditions for a big cultural change will be met. This will happen as a result of the current communication revolution.” The author anticipated it right and this article can be used to make judgments and see where we are heading as far as the cultural change in organizations is concerned. As we are proceeding towards 2010, are individuals, organizations, countries getting close to the “cultural impact due to the communication revolution” that Josep Burcet has mentioned in his paper?
It’s true that development in communication and technology brought about a radical change in the way the organizations conduct their business today and in their culture as well. However, I don’t think that it would be true to give credit to only one factor i.e., communication for enforcing change. Innovation and change has always been a continuous process since the pre historic age. One reason why we, Homo sapiens are considered superior because we are blessed with finest of the brains that can invent and has the ability to implement and adapt to the changes. Some might consider creation of wheel as the most important invention of mankind and others might view electricity or internet or technology as the factors that revolutionized the world. The fact is that everything is related to each other, every invention and every change that takes place.
The change management class has definitely made me realize and understand one thing that I consider important- change is a cycle, which can either be vicious or virtuous. The point to consider is that it is a cycle- one particular change, whether it is change in structure, process, culture, means of communication, revamp in the governmental or organizational strategies or social, technology, economic or political changes- each kind of change has the ability to push change in the another domain.
Josep Burcet succinctly points out “after 2010 we may expect that humankind will need to absorb a huge amount of novelty in a very short period of time. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people may not be able to handle it.”
It’s true that there are companies, which are scared of expanding business abroad because they resist adapting to the cultural divide and the management systems overseas. Their fear is reasonable as cultural differences of the employees are the most critical topic of concern these days that most of the global managers face in a multi national organizations. The companies hire resources from across the globe, people from different ethics and religions and the net result is fusion of varied cultures in the organization. Companies hire highly skilled resources from the global market and every country has its own customs, local market and business trends, religions, rituals, work culture and norms, social and organization structures etc that its nationals have been following since a long time back and it is not reasonable to expect from them to follow and understand all the cultural differences at the very first instance. Effective communication plays an important role in the interlinked global organizations.
“Ultimately, it boils down to a few areas: cultural gaps, lack of trust in each other, failure to value each other's skills, and the big one: We just don't communicate effectively.” (http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/may2007/ca20070530_521679.htm?chan=search)
Failure to understand the language adds to the issue. George Bernard Shaw said "The British and Americans are divided by a common language". Even though America and Britain has English as their official language, the spelling, pronunciation and sometimes meanings of the phrase change. For eg., 11th June 1998 is written as 11/06/98 in UK style but becomes 06/11/98 in USA style, globalisation becomes globalization etc.
In spite of the communication and language viewed as the prominent roadblocks that catapult the cross cultural issues in the organizations, companies cross the borders to do business with each other and are pushing the change across the globe. Mergers and acquisitions are the best tool to bring about change in the organizational culture.
Differences in regional culture are the deep-seated roots that make it difficult to materialize changes in the organizational culture. “Organizational culture is similar to, say, regional culture. The same person in different organizations (or parts of the same organization) would act in different ways.” (http://www.toolpack.com/culture.html). Thus, it is a huge challenge to communicate cultural change in the organization. An article published in Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_05/b4019058.htm?chan=search), on Siemens titled “Siemens’ Cultural Clash” is about how CEO Klaus Kleinfeld’s idea to implement cultural changes in Siemens is not appreciated by his employees. His challenge is to communicate the change to his engineers in 11 business units operating as separate entities with their own corporate culture. Employees resisted change that he wanted to implement and when he opened his blog for his employees to share their views and to facilitate open communication one of the employees wrote “I used to feel good in the Siemens family. But there's not much of that feeling left." (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_05/b4019058.htm?chan=search).
Kleinfeld is fluent in both German and English, knows that language is the hindrance that needs to be overcome in order to put the cultural change into operation. He has made it mandatory for his employees to speak in English, which is met with resistance. Employees also find it hard to match to the high level energy of their boss because according to them gets too demanding, when it comes to meeting his goals and his believes in the culture that he wants to implement in Siemens . He said “We commit to something, and we deliver. That is the culture we want to form." (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_05/b4019058.htm?chan=search).
The presence of a strong leader is important in an organization to make it change because cultural change is always met with resistance. It is difficult to make the people change their norms, views and believes and it takes sometimes more than three years to achieve that goal. Klienfeld is the embodiment of that strong leader for Siemens
References:
1. Burcet Llampayas, Josep. 2002. Cultural Change. http://www.burcet.net/b/cultural_change.htm. Retrieved on November, 17, 2007.
2. Toolpack Consulting. Organizational Consulting. http://www.toolpack.com/culture.html Retrieved on November, 17, 2007.
3. Siemens’ Culture Clash. 2007. Retrieved on November, 17, 2007 from Information Week. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_05/b4019058.htm?chan=search
Reflection - Usha Jose
Dealing with Abusive Managers
The Abusive Partner video case opened our eyes to the reality of abusive managers and non-responsive HR. The abrupt termination of the abusive partner was indeed the rightful action for the company to take. Still it is undeniable that the solution does not address the organization’s insensitivity to employee welfare. There were many complaints against this partner, which fell on the deaf ears of HR. The company should have taken action against him much earlier, rather than waiting for the issue to get escalated beyond repair. It is a pity that they did not act on the early signs of employee dissatisfaction, which cost them heavy employee turnover.
HCL Technologies, one of the five top outsourcing companies in India, has implemented an innovative strategy to deal with similar management issues. For HCL, employee is the king and “is always right”. The proponent and main driver of this initiative is none other than the CEO of the company, Vineet Nayar, who believes it is important for managers to “suck up to the employees”. In HCL, employees rank their supervisors and are able to see their supervisors’ ratings. Many other companies use “360 degree reviews” but HCL is the only company that makes the ratings available on the company’s intranet, making it visible organization wide. HCL employees can also file a ‘ticket’ against anything that bothers them, be it “the size of their bonus” or an abusive manager. The complaints filed are guaranteed to be taken care of. Only employees who filed the ticket can close it and they do it when they feel satisfied with how the issue is resolved. This kind of reassurance reduces a lot of employee stress that arise from dealing with abusive managers. The managers in HCL however are not very enthusiastic about this change, but are either wise enough to understand the implications of it, or have learned to live with it.
Does this strategy work? For HCL it apparently does. Since HCL implemented this, employee turn over has reduced considerably. With many competing companies trawling for talented developers with fat offers, this seems like a viable strategy for HCL in order to hold on to its employees. Many clients of HCL from all over the world are researching this method hoping to implement it. HCL’s initiative has made its way to Harvard Business School’s curriculum as well.
However, if your company has not decided go the HCL way there are some other options for dealing with abusive managers. Esther Derby, one of the founders of the AYE Conference advises that the best way to deal with abusive managers is to make your intolerance for abuse very explicit and to file a complaint with HR. Derby reminds us that HR could be inactive especially when the manager is in higher ranks and might try to act in the interest of the company rather than the employee. If you were already looking for reasons to leave the company, Derby advises you to do so soon, but not before stating your reasons for leaving clearly in the exit interview.
References
The Employee is Always Right: Jena McGregor, Business Week, Nov 19,2007
http://www.stickyminds.com/sitewide.asp?Function=edetail&ObjectType=COL&ObjectId=7229
The Abusive Partner video case opened our eyes to the reality of abusive managers and non-responsive HR. The abrupt termination of the abusive partner was indeed the rightful action for the company to take. Still it is undeniable that the solution does not address the organization’s insensitivity to employee welfare. There were many complaints against this partner, which fell on the deaf ears of HR. The company should have taken action against him much earlier, rather than waiting for the issue to get escalated beyond repair. It is a pity that they did not act on the early signs of employee dissatisfaction, which cost them heavy employee turnover.
HCL Technologies, one of the five top outsourcing companies in India, has implemented an innovative strategy to deal with similar management issues. For HCL, employee is the king and “is always right”. The proponent and main driver of this initiative is none other than the CEO of the company, Vineet Nayar, who believes it is important for managers to “suck up to the employees”. In HCL, employees rank their supervisors and are able to see their supervisors’ ratings. Many other companies use “360 degree reviews” but HCL is the only company that makes the ratings available on the company’s intranet, making it visible organization wide. HCL employees can also file a ‘ticket’ against anything that bothers them, be it “the size of their bonus” or an abusive manager. The complaints filed are guaranteed to be taken care of. Only employees who filed the ticket can close it and they do it when they feel satisfied with how the issue is resolved. This kind of reassurance reduces a lot of employee stress that arise from dealing with abusive managers. The managers in HCL however are not very enthusiastic about this change, but are either wise enough to understand the implications of it, or have learned to live with it.
Does this strategy work? For HCL it apparently does. Since HCL implemented this, employee turn over has reduced considerably. With many competing companies trawling for talented developers with fat offers, this seems like a viable strategy for HCL in order to hold on to its employees. Many clients of HCL from all over the world are researching this method hoping to implement it. HCL’s initiative has made its way to Harvard Business School’s curriculum as well.
However, if your company has not decided go the HCL way there are some other options for dealing with abusive managers. Esther Derby, one of the founders of the AYE Conference advises that the best way to deal with abusive managers is to make your intolerance for abuse very explicit and to file a complaint with HR. Derby reminds us that HR could be inactive especially when the manager is in higher ranks and might try to act in the interest of the company rather than the employee. If you were already looking for reasons to leave the company, Derby advises you to do so soon, but not before stating your reasons for leaving clearly in the exit interview.
References
The Employee is Always Right: Jena McGregor, Business Week, Nov 19,2007
http://www.stickyminds.com/sitewide.asp?Function=edetail&ObjectType=COL&ObjectId=7229
Friday, November 16, 2007
Reflection - Rachel Elkington
Never Tolerate A Bully
Today’s video touched on a topic that is near and dear to my heart: the unacceptability of bullying in the workplace. In the video, the person describing a situation was a partner in a business. One of the other partners in the business was a known bully, however, he had been tolerated because he was very talented and contributed heavily to the profitability of the company. The person describing the situation received a call one day from the father of an employee who stated unequivocally that his son was being verbally abused by the bully partner. At that point, Kevin stopped the video and allowed us to discuss what we would do if we were in the shoes of the partner who received the call. All of us gave our answers – some very creative ones among them – and then Kevin allowed the video to play out. In real life, the company decided to expel the bully partner immediately. I was very surprised by this reaction, and very encouraged. Frankly, I think it is fantastic that the company decided to draw the line about what is acceptable behavior.
Fred’s book review touched on a similar topic. He reviewed the book “The No Asshole Rule.” Although I haven’t read the book myself, I was impressed with the main argument of the book as Fred relayed it:
“Dr. Sutton’s main point of view is that assholes poison work environments. He defends this argument by breaking down the negative impact that assholes have on other people such as making people feel inferior or stupid or humiliated. He explains how when no action on behalf of management is taken to stop such negative behavior that it is more likely to spread in an organization because when tolerated, such behavior unintentionally becomes part of the organization’s culture.”
It seems intuitive to me that bullying or emotional abuse in the workplace would be bad for the bottom line. When people are experiencing strong negative emotions, it becomes difficult to perform a job well. Fear may keep a person on track for a certain amount of time, but adrenaline eventually gives way to burnout. If an entire organizational culture was accepting of bullying, I would suspect that organization would either have trouble with sustained performance, turnover, or both. According to http://career-advice.monster.com/conflict-management/Workplace-Bullying-What-Can-You-Do/home.aspx “It often costs a company tens of thousands of dollars to recruit, hire and train a new employee to replace a bullied worker who left.”
I found a resource for people who feel bullied at work: http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/
This website gives statistics on bullying in the workforce. One of the more interesting statistics it stated was that far and away most of the bullying people experience at work comes from their boss. Assuming for a moment, that that is a correct statistic, I have to pause a moment and just reflect on what a shame that is. The most important relationship a person has at work is with their boss. That relationship defines the experience of working in a place, I would argue at least as much as the work itself.
According to http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/res/2003toc.html bullying can lead to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Acute Anxiety, and other health problems. With that in mind, it seems that we should all take a stand against bullying and do our part to stop it whenever we can.
Today’s video touched on a topic that is near and dear to my heart: the unacceptability of bullying in the workplace. In the video, the person describing a situation was a partner in a business. One of the other partners in the business was a known bully, however, he had been tolerated because he was very talented and contributed heavily to the profitability of the company. The person describing the situation received a call one day from the father of an employee who stated unequivocally that his son was being verbally abused by the bully partner. At that point, Kevin stopped the video and allowed us to discuss what we would do if we were in the shoes of the partner who received the call. All of us gave our answers – some very creative ones among them – and then Kevin allowed the video to play out. In real life, the company decided to expel the bully partner immediately. I was very surprised by this reaction, and very encouraged. Frankly, I think it is fantastic that the company decided to draw the line about what is acceptable behavior.
Fred’s book review touched on a similar topic. He reviewed the book “The No Asshole Rule.” Although I haven’t read the book myself, I was impressed with the main argument of the book as Fred relayed it:
“Dr. Sutton’s main point of view is that assholes poison work environments. He defends this argument by breaking down the negative impact that assholes have on other people such as making people feel inferior or stupid or humiliated. He explains how when no action on behalf of management is taken to stop such negative behavior that it is more likely to spread in an organization because when tolerated, such behavior unintentionally becomes part of the organization’s culture.”
It seems intuitive to me that bullying or emotional abuse in the workplace would be bad for the bottom line. When people are experiencing strong negative emotions, it becomes difficult to perform a job well. Fear may keep a person on track for a certain amount of time, but adrenaline eventually gives way to burnout. If an entire organizational culture was accepting of bullying, I would suspect that organization would either have trouble with sustained performance, turnover, or both. According to http://career-advice.monster.com/conflict-management/Workplace-Bullying-What-Can-You-Do/home.aspx “It often costs a company tens of thousands of dollars to recruit, hire and train a new employee to replace a bullied worker who left.”
I found a resource for people who feel bullied at work: http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/
This website gives statistics on bullying in the workforce. One of the more interesting statistics it stated was that far and away most of the bullying people experience at work comes from their boss. Assuming for a moment, that that is a correct statistic, I have to pause a moment and just reflect on what a shame that is. The most important relationship a person has at work is with their boss. That relationship defines the experience of working in a place, I would argue at least as much as the work itself.
According to http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/res/2003toc.html bullying can lead to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Acute Anxiety, and other health problems. With that in mind, it seems that we should all take a stand against bullying and do our part to stop it whenever we can.
Reflection – Sandy Chan
The Values of Cultural Assumptions and Labels
In one of our previous classes, the class was paired into two for an exercise. We were asked to pretend we didn’t know each other and write down cultural assumptions and cultural labels to describe each other. We all shared our answers and surprisingly enough, I personally thought most of the assumptions/labels were at least partly true. Of course this result could be the biased since we’ve all known each other for a year already. The purpose of this exercise was to let us know how the assumptions we make or labels we put on people could be very wrong, and how doing so might endanger your future career. As much as I agree, I couldn’t help but wonder if there is any advantage of making cultural assumptions?
We always talk about diversity. Schools want a diversity of students; Companies want a diversity of employees. They want a diversity of students/employees because they are hoping their different (cultural) background would enable them to bring different perspectives/values to the table. When we assume a person’s perspective/value would be influenced by his/her (cultural) background. Isn’t it fair to assume at least some portion of a person’s behavior at work would be influenced by his/her cultural background as well? In a world that values diversity, how is it possible to look pass a person’s cultural background and see only who the person is?
Most of the cultural assumptions or cultural labels were not made up by one person. They are observations from people who had experiences with a certain group of people. Of course the assumptions or labels cannot apply to everyone in that group but they could apply to maybe half of the group. In fact, assumptions and labels are all we have when we enter a new environment. Without them, we might even offend someone. Assumptions and labels do have their values but you just cannot rely on them completely. However, it is always better to validate assumptions or labels before you believe them. Then, based on our own experiences and observations, we should have a better understanding of to what degree the assumptions/labels are true, and know possibly why the assumptions/labels were made at the first place.
People like to sort things into groups and find patterns for many reasons. Having things organized makes it easier to retrieve, easier to memorize, easier to understand, etc. It is only human nature that we group people into groups and make assumptions or labels so that it makes it easier to group the next a new person. I wouldn’t say making assumptions or labels is a terrible thing as long as you have validated them you’re your own observations/experiences and you know you cannot rely on them completely.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Reflection - M. Serkan Pektas
Profit Rates and Change Pressure of the Market
Today business world require companies to change and adapt existing and/or even future conditions. To survive in today’s business world as a profitable company depend on ability of the continuous change. A company should adapt itself whether reactively or proactively or a balanced combination of two strategy. Otherwise, a rival company or new company can easily get more market share. This aggressive characteristic of the markets depends on the profitability of that market. If there is an opportunity to get higher profit rate than the overall average, the investors are willing to invest this market. In fact, this brings higher change pressure over the companies in that market. Hence, it can be said that the change pressure over the companies are significantly related to their market’s profitability rate. There are two main reasons behind this: new investors (stockholders, shareholders) and new companies.
Capital is highly mobile and it can move to market immediately if there is a good chance of earning more than average. Hence, when a market gets higher profit rate, investors shift their capitals to that market. Investors invest their money to earn more. However, when there is a more player, the share that may fall in each player would be decreased. This creates a pressure on this business sector to maintain their high profit rates to satisfy their investors.
Also, business sectors with high ROI, attracts new companies or existing companies in other sectors. The main motivation is to get share from this highly profitable market and increase its overall profitability.
Those two components of the highly profitable market cause profit margin to decrease at average level. When the profit margin starts to decrease, the capital is going to move another business sector. However, the companies in that market are not mobile as investors. Therefore, they have to perform better than others to get high profit rate and ultimately to get more finance.
According to Porter[1], operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, but they work in very different ways. Operational effectiveness means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. On the other hand competitive strategy is about being different. It means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value. A company has to choose a strategic position to maintain its sustainability. Both strategies require change adaptability.
Almost every business sector has operating under the change pressure. However, the degree of the change pressure increases when the profit rate of the market increases.
[1] Porter, M. E. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-79
Today business world require companies to change and adapt existing and/or even future conditions. To survive in today’s business world as a profitable company depend on ability of the continuous change. A company should adapt itself whether reactively or proactively or a balanced combination of two strategy. Otherwise, a rival company or new company can easily get more market share. This aggressive characteristic of the markets depends on the profitability of that market. If there is an opportunity to get higher profit rate than the overall average, the investors are willing to invest this market. In fact, this brings higher change pressure over the companies in that market. Hence, it can be said that the change pressure over the companies are significantly related to their market’s profitability rate. There are two main reasons behind this: new investors (stockholders, shareholders) and new companies.
Capital is highly mobile and it can move to market immediately if there is a good chance of earning more than average. Hence, when a market gets higher profit rate, investors shift their capitals to that market. Investors invest their money to earn more. However, when there is a more player, the share that may fall in each player would be decreased. This creates a pressure on this business sector to maintain their high profit rates to satisfy their investors.
Also, business sectors with high ROI, attracts new companies or existing companies in other sectors. The main motivation is to get share from this highly profitable market and increase its overall profitability.
Those two components of the highly profitable market cause profit margin to decrease at average level. When the profit margin starts to decrease, the capital is going to move another business sector. However, the companies in that market are not mobile as investors. Therefore, they have to perform better than others to get high profit rate and ultimately to get more finance.
According to Porter[1], operational effectiveness and strategy are both essential to superior performance, but they work in very different ways. Operational effectiveness means performing similar activities better than rivals perform them. On the other hand competitive strategy is about being different. It means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value. A company has to choose a strategic position to maintain its sustainability. Both strategies require change adaptability.
Almost every business sector has operating under the change pressure. However, the degree of the change pressure increases when the profit rate of the market increases.
[1] Porter, M. E. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-79
Reflection - M. Serkan Pektas
We think in generalities, but we live in details. - Alfred North Whitehead
On November 7th class, we talked about stereotyping and its disadvantages in the working life. After this discussion, I researched and found the quote that I really like: We think in generalities, but we live in details.
I realize the importance of that quote after I experienced my close relative’s illness. The first thing that I did after I heard about my relative had ovarian cancer, I researched over internet, and I found some information and statistics about that illness. As I am a statistician, I do have tendency to make generalization, and I count on statistics. According to articles that I had read, this type of cancer is diagnosed at the third step of the illness, and after this stage there is a minimal chance of survival of the patient for next couple of years. Those are statistics and scientific results. I think most of you can guess my feelings after I realized that I might not her when I go back to my country. Thanks to God and blessed surgeons, doctors, and nurses, my relative had a successful surgery and got a series of chemotherapy, now she is healthy as before. My point is that even if generalization depends on scientific results, it does not resemble to a specific case. Each and every case has unique properties.
Psychoanalytically-oriented humanists have argued (e.g., Sander Gilman) that stereotypes, by definition, are never accurate representations, but a projection of an individual's fears onto others, regardless of the reality of others[1]. There is not only negative stereotyping, but also positive stereotyping. Both of them may be accurate or inaccurate regarding average characteristics of a group, and may be used to justify certain discriminatory behaviors. This is the key point we need to be careful. Everybody has some beliefs that may be counted as stereotyping; however those beliefs should not be influence attitudes towards people in the form of discriminatory actions. The discriminatory behaviors increase hostility between groups.
Stereotyping, even the scientific approach of stereotyping statistics, may be mistaken you at your expectation. Stereotyping is a pitfall that you have never wanted to fall in.
[1] Stereotype. (2007, November 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:37, November 10, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotype&oldid=170346142
On November 7th class, we talked about stereotyping and its disadvantages in the working life. After this discussion, I researched and found the quote that I really like: We think in generalities, but we live in details.
I realize the importance of that quote after I experienced my close relative’s illness. The first thing that I did after I heard about my relative had ovarian cancer, I researched over internet, and I found some information and statistics about that illness. As I am a statistician, I do have tendency to make generalization, and I count on statistics. According to articles that I had read, this type of cancer is diagnosed at the third step of the illness, and after this stage there is a minimal chance of survival of the patient for next couple of years. Those are statistics and scientific results. I think most of you can guess my feelings after I realized that I might not her when I go back to my country. Thanks to God and blessed surgeons, doctors, and nurses, my relative had a successful surgery and got a series of chemotherapy, now she is healthy as before. My point is that even if generalization depends on scientific results, it does not resemble to a specific case. Each and every case has unique properties.
Psychoanalytically-oriented humanists have argued (e.g., Sander Gilman) that stereotypes, by definition, are never accurate representations, but a projection of an individual's fears onto others, regardless of the reality of others[1]. There is not only negative stereotyping, but also positive stereotyping. Both of them may be accurate or inaccurate regarding average characteristics of a group, and may be used to justify certain discriminatory behaviors. This is the key point we need to be careful. Everybody has some beliefs that may be counted as stereotyping; however those beliefs should not be influence attitudes towards people in the form of discriminatory actions. The discriminatory behaviors increase hostility between groups.
Stereotyping, even the scientific approach of stereotyping statistics, may be mistaken you at your expectation. Stereotyping is a pitfall that you have never wanted to fall in.
[1] Stereotype. (2007, November 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:37, November 10, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotype&oldid=170346142
Monday, November 12, 2007
Book Review - Response Ability: The Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile Enterprise - Kate Bogh
Rick Dove is one, of only a very few authors, who sincerely believes in the vision of an agile enterprise and its ability to adapt and respond to change quickly and efficiently. The true value of Dove’s book is the step by step documentation that leads organizations toward agility. His book, Response Ability: The Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile Enterprise, written in 2001, are still considered to be at the forefront of developing agile concepts.
While the book refers mostly to manufacturing examples, stories and scenarios, Dove has spent almost equal time in engineering, manufacturing and software development before moving into change management where he works now as a Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology in the School of Systems and Enterprises. His courses cover engineering and design of agile systems and enterprise systems. Dove focuses on resilient response, innovative response, agile secure, system interoperability and self organization. (Dove, Bio).
Responsibility is still not understood completely in the software development world where as in the manufacturing field, most all organizations implement some form of agility and some have enterprise level agility. For many organizations, agility is considered an abstract notion that promises incredible benefits but is likely unattainable. There are a couple reasons for this. First, software development is still a relatively new field that has grown of its momentum until very recently. Secondly, software development is a very technical field. There are numerous organizations implementing agility at the team level and growing from there. But virtually none of them are reaching the level of organizational agility. Organizations reap the benefits of agile development teams but do not know how to duplicate the results in other departments or at the executive level. Unlike most authors who focus on the abstract theories and concepts behind agility, Dove is unique in that he provides the business arguments for agility while identifying the down to earth changes necessary to implement them.
For most organizations, the drive to become agile comes from a desperate desire adapt to market demands and requirements quickly, efficiently, smoothly and without giving up so much that the effort has more cost than it brings in. The field of manufacturing has taken off in terms of agility; there are a number of organizations that can now be considered agile enterprises. The software development world is slowly catching up.
Most organizations strive for proficiency of change in different ways. Whether through efficiency programs or transformation programs, if an organization is proficient at change, it can and will adapt to unpredictable opportunities and will avoid unpredictable threats. “Being agile means being proficient at change. Agility allows an organization…to continue to succeed when constant innovation becomes the dominant competitive strategy.” (pg. 5). Agility is a business strategy and when implemented appropriately can make the organization work more smoothly and significantly more profitably.
Throughout the book there are three overriding themes that are used repeatedly. The first is the concept of Response situation analysis (RS analysis) which involves product, process, practice and people. The second is reusable, reconfigurable and scalable (RSS) frameworks. And the third is a set of metrics for measuring organizational change efficiency. Also used throughout the book, is a case study on Remmele Engineering and its incorporation of agility. Below is a look at each in more detail.
The response situation analysis provides a way for organizations to define problems and opportunities using the analysis of eight change domains. The domains are divided into proactive and reactive elements. The proactive domains are creation, improvement, migration and modification. The reactive domains are correction, variation, expansion and reconfiguration. Four examples are given, from different organizations, each one addressing product, process, practice or people.
To assist in the domain analysis, Dove offers 10 steps including compiling an appropriate evaluation team, working within constraints, defining issues and brainstorming. The response situation analysis can be used within any organizational department or specialty by simply dividing the issue or opportunity into the appropriate category of product, process, practice or people.
Another common theme throughout the book is the importance of developing and maintaining systems that are reusable, reconfigurable and scalable (RSS). Change proficiency + RSS = Response ability. (pg.11). While change proficiency is markedly more difficult to implement, RSS relies on design principles. Dove argues that anyone in an organization can implement RSS principles and practices whether they are an HR employee or on the floor of a manufacturing chain. This is a very valuable point. When most people discuss agility, it is in regards to a respective specialty whether software development, manufacturing or product development. What makes enterprise agility work is the ability to adapt the concepts to every aspect of the organization. Dove encourages everyone to take the concepts and apply them to where the workplace and to modify them as necessary to fit the need. He suggests that developing the information to fit into a particular example is what teaches us what works and what does not. Adapting the information makes it our own and more likely to be successful.
Dove also offers a metrics for measuring change proficiency within an organization. In fact, this is what really attracted me to Dove’s work. Agility feels like a touchy feely idea that no organization is ever really able to implement…unless it is measureable. Measurability proves the potential. While there is still no concrete information about measuring agility, change proficiency is a strong step in the right direction. If an organization can prove change proficiency and the benefits afforded from it, it could potentially justify the cost and effort of implementing agility.
The change proficiency maturity model is the tool for measuring change proficiency within an organization. The model contains twenty four characteristic or metrics, each evaluating a different aspect of an organization from strategic planning, business justification, innovation management, knowledge management and performance metrics. All twenty four characteristics are given a rating from 0 to 4. 0 is accidental. 1 is repeatable. 2 is defined. 3 is managed and 4 is mastered. The scores are plotted on a chart and the deficiencies are clearly shown and can be addressed directly. This is the model my organization uses to view software development team maturity however the scope is significantly smaller and fewer metrics are used.
The change proficiency maturity model is a tool developed over 10 years ago and still very prevalent today. Still, the model could use an update. First the organizational relationship management section encompasses too much and should be broken into two separate topics. It currently includes all internal and external relationships. Internal relationships should be moved out into a separate category that includes information system unit relationships, employee relationships and business unit relationships while customer, supplier and partner relationships are considered separately. I would also consider added an employee evaluation metric to the performance metric. Right now it only includes metrics based upon product, process and practice and ignores the people aspect.
The book goes on to explain how to design systems for adaptability and responsibility. A very prominent case study on Remmele Engineering is used as a reference point. Remmele Engineering is a machined-metal parts and custom automation business that had a little over $100 million in 1999 and sustained 12 percent growth rate per year while comparatively sized competing organizations experienced slow or no growth. Machining is not a very high-growth market and it is far from stable. Remmele focuses is on customer satisfaction first, then employee satisfaction, growth, community service and profits. Profits are the last item on the list of organizational guiding principles while employee satisfaction is very near to the top. Everyone involved in implementing a plan is a part of the development and evaluation from the beginning to the end. For employees, Remmele offers an active collaborative network, cross-divisional meetings and opportunities for learning. Organizational culture also plays a large role (there is more on this in the next section).The lessons Remmele has learned in an effort at implemented agility are easily transferred to other companies in different industries. Remmele has mastered response ability. In 1976 Remmele grossed $8 million in sales. After leaving traditional sales systems and setting up a national sales rep organization, revenues exceeded $46 million within six years. In 1989 sales exceed $60 mill and by 1996 Remmele had 475 employees and annual revenues of about $90 million. Their customer base includes computer and automotive companies, medical device manufacturers, and the aircraft/space industry. Remmele had the strategy, mission, values, adaptable people and the culture to support change.
Organizational culture is one of the most important aspects for encouraging innovation and increased knowledge. In one study, sited in the book, David Upton, of Harvard, studied why it is so hard for companies to become more flexible even when they knew and agreed flexibility brings about competitive advantage. He studied 61 factories and found that there was no relationship between flexibility and the size of the plant or flexibility and workforce experience but that flexibility was largely a factor of the people and their desire for a flexible operation. “Plants whose managers had not flexibility as a clearly understood goal were much less flexible than those whose managers had.” (pg. 60). Corporate culture provides a link between employees and the organization. The book goes on to explain ways of improving and/or adjusting corporate culture.
Overall the book offered a lot of models, processes, support and guidance for becoming more agile or response able. The tools and metrics are also valuable and backed up with numerous case studies and examples that are just too numerous to describe. The amount of information was overwhelming and after having read the book once, I want to go back and read it again. In this book there is value in every page which makes it a good read.
Still there are significant challenges to Dove’s model for response ability that can easily make or break organizational change efforts. At one point in the book Dove mentioned that application of recommended practices does not guarantee success. It takes more than just implementation of principles for success and in many ways, Dove explains, it is an art form. It takes soft skills alongside the concrete ones to ensure success. Aligning all the ducks in a row is a challenge and this really touches on why so many organizations are afraid to take the leap into implementation. Sometimes employees just cannot embrace the change or the organization cannot make the drastic changes necessary for change. It has to be a concerted effort. If I were the CEO, CIO or president of an organization I would hire one or two people whose sole responsibility it would be to align the business, strategy side of the organization with the culture. There is certainly risk involved. Dove makes it seem as though it is easy if only appropriate steps are followed but the real world is more complicated as not as predictable as Dove would have us believe.
I wish Dove had expressed more about the experiential requirements of high level change makers within an organization. He claims that anyone can implement changes at any level or place within the organization but it takes very specific management and business skills to be able to look at the whole picture of the organization and systematically change components to lead towards agility. The steps need to be completed in the right sequence and Dove does not go into the specifics.
Overall the book does a very good job of explaining and justifying response ability, what it is, why it works and what needs to happen to make an organization more adaptable and flexible to change. In reality, any step and organization takes toward agility, using Dove’s suggestions is likely to have a positive impact.
Resources:
Dove, Rick. Personal Bio. Paradigm Shift International. URL: http://www.parshift.com/BioDove.htm
Dove, Rick. Response Ability: The Language, Structure and Culture of the Agile Enterprise. John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2001.
Dove, Rick, Hartman, Sue, Benson, Steve. “An Agile Enterprise Reference Model with a Case Study of Remmele Engineering”. Agility Forum Report, 1996. URL: http://www.parshift.com/docs/aermodA0.htm
Upton, David. “What Really Makes Factories Flexible?” 1995.
While the book refers mostly to manufacturing examples, stories and scenarios, Dove has spent almost equal time in engineering, manufacturing and software development before moving into change management where he works now as a Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology in the School of Systems and Enterprises. His courses cover engineering and design of agile systems and enterprise systems. Dove focuses on resilient response, innovative response, agile secure, system interoperability and self organization. (Dove, Bio).
Responsibility is still not understood completely in the software development world where as in the manufacturing field, most all organizations implement some form of agility and some have enterprise level agility. For many organizations, agility is considered an abstract notion that promises incredible benefits but is likely unattainable. There are a couple reasons for this. First, software development is still a relatively new field that has grown of its momentum until very recently. Secondly, software development is a very technical field. There are numerous organizations implementing agility at the team level and growing from there. But virtually none of them are reaching the level of organizational agility. Organizations reap the benefits of agile development teams but do not know how to duplicate the results in other departments or at the executive level. Unlike most authors who focus on the abstract theories and concepts behind agility, Dove is unique in that he provides the business arguments for agility while identifying the down to earth changes necessary to implement them.
For most organizations, the drive to become agile comes from a desperate desire adapt to market demands and requirements quickly, efficiently, smoothly and without giving up so much that the effort has more cost than it brings in. The field of manufacturing has taken off in terms of agility; there are a number of organizations that can now be considered agile enterprises. The software development world is slowly catching up.
Most organizations strive for proficiency of change in different ways. Whether through efficiency programs or transformation programs, if an organization is proficient at change, it can and will adapt to unpredictable opportunities and will avoid unpredictable threats. “Being agile means being proficient at change. Agility allows an organization…to continue to succeed when constant innovation becomes the dominant competitive strategy.” (pg. 5). Agility is a business strategy and when implemented appropriately can make the organization work more smoothly and significantly more profitably.
Throughout the book there are three overriding themes that are used repeatedly. The first is the concept of Response situation analysis (RS analysis) which involves product, process, practice and people. The second is reusable, reconfigurable and scalable (RSS) frameworks. And the third is a set of metrics for measuring organizational change efficiency. Also used throughout the book, is a case study on Remmele Engineering and its incorporation of agility. Below is a look at each in more detail.
The response situation analysis provides a way for organizations to define problems and opportunities using the analysis of eight change domains. The domains are divided into proactive and reactive elements. The proactive domains are creation, improvement, migration and modification. The reactive domains are correction, variation, expansion and reconfiguration. Four examples are given, from different organizations, each one addressing product, process, practice or people.
To assist in the domain analysis, Dove offers 10 steps including compiling an appropriate evaluation team, working within constraints, defining issues and brainstorming. The response situation analysis can be used within any organizational department or specialty by simply dividing the issue or opportunity into the appropriate category of product, process, practice or people.
Another common theme throughout the book is the importance of developing and maintaining systems that are reusable, reconfigurable and scalable (RSS). Change proficiency + RSS = Response ability. (pg.11). While change proficiency is markedly more difficult to implement, RSS relies on design principles. Dove argues that anyone in an organization can implement RSS principles and practices whether they are an HR employee or on the floor of a manufacturing chain. This is a very valuable point. When most people discuss agility, it is in regards to a respective specialty whether software development, manufacturing or product development. What makes enterprise agility work is the ability to adapt the concepts to every aspect of the organization. Dove encourages everyone to take the concepts and apply them to where the workplace and to modify them as necessary to fit the need. He suggests that developing the information to fit into a particular example is what teaches us what works and what does not. Adapting the information makes it our own and more likely to be successful.
Dove also offers a metrics for measuring change proficiency within an organization. In fact, this is what really attracted me to Dove’s work. Agility feels like a touchy feely idea that no organization is ever really able to implement…unless it is measureable. Measurability proves the potential. While there is still no concrete information about measuring agility, change proficiency is a strong step in the right direction. If an organization can prove change proficiency and the benefits afforded from it, it could potentially justify the cost and effort of implementing agility.
The change proficiency maturity model is the tool for measuring change proficiency within an organization. The model contains twenty four characteristic or metrics, each evaluating a different aspect of an organization from strategic planning, business justification, innovation management, knowledge management and performance metrics. All twenty four characteristics are given a rating from 0 to 4. 0 is accidental. 1 is repeatable. 2 is defined. 3 is managed and 4 is mastered. The scores are plotted on a chart and the deficiencies are clearly shown and can be addressed directly. This is the model my organization uses to view software development team maturity however the scope is significantly smaller and fewer metrics are used.
The change proficiency maturity model is a tool developed over 10 years ago and still very prevalent today. Still, the model could use an update. First the organizational relationship management section encompasses too much and should be broken into two separate topics. It currently includes all internal and external relationships. Internal relationships should be moved out into a separate category that includes information system unit relationships, employee relationships and business unit relationships while customer, supplier and partner relationships are considered separately. I would also consider added an employee evaluation metric to the performance metric. Right now it only includes metrics based upon product, process and practice and ignores the people aspect.
The book goes on to explain how to design systems for adaptability and responsibility. A very prominent case study on Remmele Engineering is used as a reference point. Remmele Engineering is a machined-metal parts and custom automation business that had a little over $100 million in 1999 and sustained 12 percent growth rate per year while comparatively sized competing organizations experienced slow or no growth. Machining is not a very high-growth market and it is far from stable. Remmele focuses is on customer satisfaction first, then employee satisfaction, growth, community service and profits. Profits are the last item on the list of organizational guiding principles while employee satisfaction is very near to the top. Everyone involved in implementing a plan is a part of the development and evaluation from the beginning to the end. For employees, Remmele offers an active collaborative network, cross-divisional meetings and opportunities for learning. Organizational culture also plays a large role (there is more on this in the next section).The lessons Remmele has learned in an effort at implemented agility are easily transferred to other companies in different industries. Remmele has mastered response ability. In 1976 Remmele grossed $8 million in sales. After leaving traditional sales systems and setting up a national sales rep organization, revenues exceeded $46 million within six years. In 1989 sales exceed $60 mill and by 1996 Remmele had 475 employees and annual revenues of about $90 million. Their customer base includes computer and automotive companies, medical device manufacturers, and the aircraft/space industry. Remmele had the strategy, mission, values, adaptable people and the culture to support change.
Organizational culture is one of the most important aspects for encouraging innovation and increased knowledge. In one study, sited in the book, David Upton, of Harvard, studied why it is so hard for companies to become more flexible even when they knew and agreed flexibility brings about competitive advantage. He studied 61 factories and found that there was no relationship between flexibility and the size of the plant or flexibility and workforce experience but that flexibility was largely a factor of the people and their desire for a flexible operation. “Plants whose managers had not flexibility as a clearly understood goal were much less flexible than those whose managers had.” (pg. 60). Corporate culture provides a link between employees and the organization. The book goes on to explain ways of improving and/or adjusting corporate culture.
Overall the book offered a lot of models, processes, support and guidance for becoming more agile or response able. The tools and metrics are also valuable and backed up with numerous case studies and examples that are just too numerous to describe. The amount of information was overwhelming and after having read the book once, I want to go back and read it again. In this book there is value in every page which makes it a good read.
Still there are significant challenges to Dove’s model for response ability that can easily make or break organizational change efforts. At one point in the book Dove mentioned that application of recommended practices does not guarantee success. It takes more than just implementation of principles for success and in many ways, Dove explains, it is an art form. It takes soft skills alongside the concrete ones to ensure success. Aligning all the ducks in a row is a challenge and this really touches on why so many organizations are afraid to take the leap into implementation. Sometimes employees just cannot embrace the change or the organization cannot make the drastic changes necessary for change. It has to be a concerted effort. If I were the CEO, CIO or president of an organization I would hire one or two people whose sole responsibility it would be to align the business, strategy side of the organization with the culture. There is certainly risk involved. Dove makes it seem as though it is easy if only appropriate steps are followed but the real world is more complicated as not as predictable as Dove would have us believe.
I wish Dove had expressed more about the experiential requirements of high level change makers within an organization. He claims that anyone can implement changes at any level or place within the organization but it takes very specific management and business skills to be able to look at the whole picture of the organization and systematically change components to lead towards agility. The steps need to be completed in the right sequence and Dove does not go into the specifics.
Overall the book does a very good job of explaining and justifying response ability, what it is, why it works and what needs to happen to make an organization more adaptable and flexible to change. In reality, any step and organization takes toward agility, using Dove’s suggestions is likely to have a positive impact.
Resources:
Dove, Rick. Personal Bio. Paradigm Shift International. URL: http://www.parshift.com/BioDove.htm
Dove, Rick. Response Ability: The Language, Structure and Culture of the Agile Enterprise. John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2001.
Dove, Rick, Hartman, Sue, Benson, Steve. “An Agile Enterprise Reference Model with a Case Study of Remmele Engineering”. Agility Forum Report, 1996. URL: http://www.parshift.com/docs/aermodA0.htm
Upton, David. “What Really Makes Factories Flexible?” 1995.
Book Review - The No Asshole Rule - Fred Bigjim
The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. By Robert I. Sutton, PhD. Warner Business Book. 210 pp (2007).
I picked this book because from my own personal work experience over the years I have had to work with my share of assholes. Even though most other civilized co-workers which I had at any give job could not stand these obvious assholes either, time and time again management never seemed to care. Of course some managers were sympathetic, but from their point of view if these assholes were not violating any direct company rule then there was not much that could be done. From my own personal experiences I have also worked at many places that seem to share the same organizational rhetoric as far as not tolerating inappropriate behaviors, however when it came to the assholes not much ever seemed to be done. For such reasons I thought it would be interesting to read the perspective of a PhD management professor concerning this unfortunate, but very relative reality in the workplace.
About the Author:
Robert I. Sutton, PhD is a professor of organizational behavior, professor of management science and engineering and a co-director of the customer-focused innovation executive program at the Stanford school of management. He received his PhD in Organizational Psychology from The University of Michigan and has been a faculty member at Stanford since 1983. “Sutton studies the links between managerial knowledge and organizational action, evidence-based management, and innovation, and organizational performance.” [1]
My Own Personal Abstract
Personally, his credentials were more of a re-enforcement to read this book. What really caught my attention is just how down to earth Professor Sutton comes across in his introduction about how jerks should not be tolerated in the workplace.
This book is not written as a psycho-analytical dissertation on the sociological cancer within organizations that are “assholes” and how with a little love or care and therapy on behalf of the rest of us how we may better understand and cope with assholes. No, this book is a refreshing examination of how assholes make life more difficult for the rest of us while at work. I respect Dr. Sutton’s approach of frank honesty and his attitude that life is too short to put up with complete jerks if you do not have to. I concluded from his introduction that he appears to be speaking to the common person and that he understands that everyone at some point or another has worked with or under a complete jerk. I looked up Dr. Sutton’s personal blog and it only reinforces my belief that he is a teacher that really believes that the more vocal people are about jerks the more it will hopefully encourage people to become more active in addressing the problem at their places of work. I like his stand up for yourself attitude and the fact that he is out to educate managers that it is in the best overall interest for organizations to not tolerate assholes at any level.
From his research and from letters from his fans he has posted a great list of tips when it comes to dealing with workplace assholes that can be found on his blog.[2] Sure there have been books and studies done on workplace bullies and other such miserable people, but from my own personal point of view this I find this study to be refreshing in how it just comes out and reminds you that even though assholes may be everywhere and even though they are a fact of life and business that they still should not be tolerated. With this said Sutton also recognizes that at some point and time everyone has a bad day or may behave like a jerk from time to time.
For this reason he is clear to remind people not to judge or label people as an asshole too quickly, because most likely you yourself have been a jerk to someone else at one point or another. So as to not create confusion between if someone is just acting like a jerk or is a true problem, Sutton includes an “are you an asshole” self assessment test (pg. 124-126) (note: there is also a free online version of the test as well[3]).
Book Summary:
Dr. Sutton’s main point of view is that assholes poison work environments. He defends this argument by breaking down the negative impact that assholes have on other people such as making people feel inferior or stupid or humiliated. He explains how when no action on behalf of management is taken to stop such negative behavior that it is more likely to spread in an organization because when tolerated, such behavior unintentionally becomes part of the organization’s culture. The book has several great case studies from real organizations that demonstrate how such behavior can bring down moral, make people afraid of others, and how people lose faith in their leadership for allowing it to occur as how workers eventually lose respect for their organization as whole.
Two general litmus tests presented in the book for red flags concerning workplace environment asshole behavior are:
“Test One: After talking to the alleged asshole, does the “target” feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled by the person? In particular, does the target feel worse about him or herself?” Test Two: Does the alleged asshole aim his or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at those people who are more powerful?” (pg.9)
Sutton demonstrates of how this type of behavior has a stressful and negative impact on people by providing research examples from medical studies on the matter. Some of the examples are truly heartbreaking to read as far as how much some of the victims suffer because of assholes. However, being a management book Sutton demonstrates that it is just as important to appeal to one’s rational side as far as why assholes are not worth keeping around. For this straight forward approach, Sutton breaks down in a cost analysis relationship some factors for organizations to consider when it comes to assholes.
It is called the: “Total Cost of Assholes to Your Organization” or TCA and some of the factors stated in the book are as follows:
“Damage to victims and witnesses – loss of motivation and energy at work, stress-induced psychological and physical illness, prolonged bullying turns victims into assholes, absenteeism, and turnover. Woes of Certified Assholes - victims and witnesses hesitate to help, cooperate with them or give them bad news, retaliation from victims, failure to reach potential in the organization. Wicked consequences for management – time spent “cooling out” employees who are victimized, time spent reorganizing departments and terms so that assholes do less damage, time spent interviewing, recruiting, and training replacements for departed assholes and their victims. Legal and HR Management costs – legal costs for inside and outside counsel, settlement fees and successful litigation by victims, health insurance costs. Negative effects on organizations – reduced innovation and creativity, reduced cooperation and cohesion, dysfunctional internal cooperation, impaired cooperation from outside organizations and people, impaired ability to attract the best and brightest.” (pg. 49-51)
Sutton uses such rational, emotional and personal examples to help to justify his stance that organizations should do their best to in fact have a “no asshole rule.” He goes beyond just reiterating the fact that assholes bring other people down and that people don’t like working with them. This is more or less common knowledge. Sutton expands upon these issues and provides clear examples of how assholes are bad for not only individual victims but for organizations as a whole. He then explicitly demonstrates the consequences that result from such behavior by showing the negative economic impact it has in the overall big scheme of operations to organizations. For these reasons, I believe that Sutton’s book is a convincing argument for management to do what it can to keep assholes out of organizations, especially when it pertains to positions of leadership because assholes just do not make for respectable team leaders (examples are covered in the book that examine the attitude that being an asshole is a good way to rise the ranks and even though it does happen a lot the conclusion and evidence presented in the end is that they are not effective once they are in active leadership positions).
What I liked:
I enjoyed the case studies tremendously. They do a great job of putting you in the shoes of the victims, however at the same time Sutton also keeps his commentary from being one sad story after the other. He logically establishes connections between how asshole problems at the individual levels in turn escalate to negatively affect organizations at an operational level. Dr. Sutton also emphasizes that it is not just enough to have rules about not tolerating assholes, but that organizations must enforce those rules as well if they are to be of any merit. I found the case study of Intel to be very interesting. It covered the concept of teaching people the art of counter confrontation and goes into detail how at Intel employees must take a class on not being afraid to speak up for yourself. By having such classes be mandatory it encourages employees to look out for each other and to not be afraid to be supportive of each other in regards to assholes (in the book one key problem stated is that in most organizations people are afraid to come forward in support of a colleague that they know is being victimized by an asshole). I also like the fact that the book recognizes that some assholes are successful, such as Steve Jobs (and this asshole label is supported by insider testimonials) and that again the world is not perfect or fair for that matter. By including asshole success stories it demonstrates that many times you will in fact have to just deal with assholes if you do decide that you in fact do want to work in an organization that tolerates them - especially if they are in charge. Again, it goes back to the attitude that life is too short and ultimately as an employee it comes down to personal choice as far as what you are willing endure or compromise when it comes to working with or for assholes.
For Consideration:
The study focuses mainly on American interpretations of an asshole. Because of the increase in globalization within organizations I believe that the book would benefit from including a section on cross-cultural examinations concerning what could be interpreted asshole behavior. I state this because as discussed in class it is very easy to misinterpret cultural differences. One example was the video case study of the American firm that was working with a Japanese firm. Based on the cultural differences, it would be easy to label the Japanese team as assholes based on their initial views on women and minorities. However, as demonstrated they were not being assholes per se. What may come across as asshole behavior from one cultural perspective could possibly in reality be just a cultural misunderstanding. Some examples of misinterpretations discussed in class were how different cultures have different meanings as far as body language and gestures are concerned (which could ruin a business meeting), different meanings for different words (which can lead to communication problems in emails and conference calls and such), and how easily it is to come to assumptions when you view such examples only from your own cultural perspective. I believe that because of how global business has become that issues such as these are important to address in order to help prevent people from jumping too quickly to conclusions when it comes to many of the subtle communication idiosyncrasies that differ across cultures.
Sutton, R. I. (2007). The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. New York: Warner Business Books.
[1] Stanford Graduate School of Business: Faculty Profiles. https://gsbapps.stanford.edu/facultybios/biomain.asp?id=09991316
2 Bob Sutton’s Latest Tips for Surviving Workplace Assholes. http://bobsutton.typepad.com/
3Are you a certifiable asshole? http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/
I picked this book because from my own personal work experience over the years I have had to work with my share of assholes. Even though most other civilized co-workers which I had at any give job could not stand these obvious assholes either, time and time again management never seemed to care. Of course some managers were sympathetic, but from their point of view if these assholes were not violating any direct company rule then there was not much that could be done. From my own personal experiences I have also worked at many places that seem to share the same organizational rhetoric as far as not tolerating inappropriate behaviors, however when it came to the assholes not much ever seemed to be done. For such reasons I thought it would be interesting to read the perspective of a PhD management professor concerning this unfortunate, but very relative reality in the workplace.
About the Author:
Robert I. Sutton, PhD is a professor of organizational behavior, professor of management science and engineering and a co-director of the customer-focused innovation executive program at the Stanford school of management. He received his PhD in Organizational Psychology from The University of Michigan and has been a faculty member at Stanford since 1983. “Sutton studies the links between managerial knowledge and organizational action, evidence-based management, and innovation, and organizational performance.” [1]
My Own Personal Abstract
Personally, his credentials were more of a re-enforcement to read this book. What really caught my attention is just how down to earth Professor Sutton comes across in his introduction about how jerks should not be tolerated in the workplace.
This book is not written as a psycho-analytical dissertation on the sociological cancer within organizations that are “assholes” and how with a little love or care and therapy on behalf of the rest of us how we may better understand and cope with assholes. No, this book is a refreshing examination of how assholes make life more difficult for the rest of us while at work. I respect Dr. Sutton’s approach of frank honesty and his attitude that life is too short to put up with complete jerks if you do not have to. I concluded from his introduction that he appears to be speaking to the common person and that he understands that everyone at some point or another has worked with or under a complete jerk. I looked up Dr. Sutton’s personal blog and it only reinforces my belief that he is a teacher that really believes that the more vocal people are about jerks the more it will hopefully encourage people to become more active in addressing the problem at their places of work. I like his stand up for yourself attitude and the fact that he is out to educate managers that it is in the best overall interest for organizations to not tolerate assholes at any level.
From his research and from letters from his fans he has posted a great list of tips when it comes to dealing with workplace assholes that can be found on his blog.[2] Sure there have been books and studies done on workplace bullies and other such miserable people, but from my own personal point of view this I find this study to be refreshing in how it just comes out and reminds you that even though assholes may be everywhere and even though they are a fact of life and business that they still should not be tolerated. With this said Sutton also recognizes that at some point and time everyone has a bad day or may behave like a jerk from time to time.
For this reason he is clear to remind people not to judge or label people as an asshole too quickly, because most likely you yourself have been a jerk to someone else at one point or another. So as to not create confusion between if someone is just acting like a jerk or is a true problem, Sutton includes an “are you an asshole” self assessment test (pg. 124-126) (note: there is also a free online version of the test as well[3]).
Book Summary:
Dr. Sutton’s main point of view is that assholes poison work environments. He defends this argument by breaking down the negative impact that assholes have on other people such as making people feel inferior or stupid or humiliated. He explains how when no action on behalf of management is taken to stop such negative behavior that it is more likely to spread in an organization because when tolerated, such behavior unintentionally becomes part of the organization’s culture. The book has several great case studies from real organizations that demonstrate how such behavior can bring down moral, make people afraid of others, and how people lose faith in their leadership for allowing it to occur as how workers eventually lose respect for their organization as whole.
Two general litmus tests presented in the book for red flags concerning workplace environment asshole behavior are:
“Test One: After talking to the alleged asshole, does the “target” feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled by the person? In particular, does the target feel worse about him or herself?” Test Two: Does the alleged asshole aim his or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at those people who are more powerful?” (pg.9)
Sutton demonstrates of how this type of behavior has a stressful and negative impact on people by providing research examples from medical studies on the matter. Some of the examples are truly heartbreaking to read as far as how much some of the victims suffer because of assholes. However, being a management book Sutton demonstrates that it is just as important to appeal to one’s rational side as far as why assholes are not worth keeping around. For this straight forward approach, Sutton breaks down in a cost analysis relationship some factors for organizations to consider when it comes to assholes.
It is called the: “Total Cost of Assholes to Your Organization” or TCA and some of the factors stated in the book are as follows:
“Damage to victims and witnesses – loss of motivation and energy at work, stress-induced psychological and physical illness, prolonged bullying turns victims into assholes, absenteeism, and turnover. Woes of Certified Assholes - victims and witnesses hesitate to help, cooperate with them or give them bad news, retaliation from victims, failure to reach potential in the organization. Wicked consequences for management – time spent “cooling out” employees who are victimized, time spent reorganizing departments and terms so that assholes do less damage, time spent interviewing, recruiting, and training replacements for departed assholes and their victims. Legal and HR Management costs – legal costs for inside and outside counsel, settlement fees and successful litigation by victims, health insurance costs. Negative effects on organizations – reduced innovation and creativity, reduced cooperation and cohesion, dysfunctional internal cooperation, impaired cooperation from outside organizations and people, impaired ability to attract the best and brightest.” (pg. 49-51)
Sutton uses such rational, emotional and personal examples to help to justify his stance that organizations should do their best to in fact have a “no asshole rule.” He goes beyond just reiterating the fact that assholes bring other people down and that people don’t like working with them. This is more or less common knowledge. Sutton expands upon these issues and provides clear examples of how assholes are bad for not only individual victims but for organizations as a whole. He then explicitly demonstrates the consequences that result from such behavior by showing the negative economic impact it has in the overall big scheme of operations to organizations. For these reasons, I believe that Sutton’s book is a convincing argument for management to do what it can to keep assholes out of organizations, especially when it pertains to positions of leadership because assholes just do not make for respectable team leaders (examples are covered in the book that examine the attitude that being an asshole is a good way to rise the ranks and even though it does happen a lot the conclusion and evidence presented in the end is that they are not effective once they are in active leadership positions).
What I liked:
I enjoyed the case studies tremendously. They do a great job of putting you in the shoes of the victims, however at the same time Sutton also keeps his commentary from being one sad story after the other. He logically establishes connections between how asshole problems at the individual levels in turn escalate to negatively affect organizations at an operational level. Dr. Sutton also emphasizes that it is not just enough to have rules about not tolerating assholes, but that organizations must enforce those rules as well if they are to be of any merit. I found the case study of Intel to be very interesting. It covered the concept of teaching people the art of counter confrontation and goes into detail how at Intel employees must take a class on not being afraid to speak up for yourself. By having such classes be mandatory it encourages employees to look out for each other and to not be afraid to be supportive of each other in regards to assholes (in the book one key problem stated is that in most organizations people are afraid to come forward in support of a colleague that they know is being victimized by an asshole). I also like the fact that the book recognizes that some assholes are successful, such as Steve Jobs (and this asshole label is supported by insider testimonials) and that again the world is not perfect or fair for that matter. By including asshole success stories it demonstrates that many times you will in fact have to just deal with assholes if you do decide that you in fact do want to work in an organization that tolerates them - especially if they are in charge. Again, it goes back to the attitude that life is too short and ultimately as an employee it comes down to personal choice as far as what you are willing endure or compromise when it comes to working with or for assholes.
For Consideration:
The study focuses mainly on American interpretations of an asshole. Because of the increase in globalization within organizations I believe that the book would benefit from including a section on cross-cultural examinations concerning what could be interpreted asshole behavior. I state this because as discussed in class it is very easy to misinterpret cultural differences. One example was the video case study of the American firm that was working with a Japanese firm. Based on the cultural differences, it would be easy to label the Japanese team as assholes based on their initial views on women and minorities. However, as demonstrated they were not being assholes per se. What may come across as asshole behavior from one cultural perspective could possibly in reality be just a cultural misunderstanding. Some examples of misinterpretations discussed in class were how different cultures have different meanings as far as body language and gestures are concerned (which could ruin a business meeting), different meanings for different words (which can lead to communication problems in emails and conference calls and such), and how easily it is to come to assumptions when you view such examples only from your own cultural perspective. I believe that because of how global business has become that issues such as these are important to address in order to help prevent people from jumping too quickly to conclusions when it comes to many of the subtle communication idiosyncrasies that differ across cultures.
Sutton, R. I. (2007). The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t. New York: Warner Business Books.
[1] Stanford Graduate School of Business: Faculty Profiles. https://gsbapps.stanford.edu/facultybios/biomain.asp?id=09991316
2 Bob Sutton’s Latest Tips for Surviving Workplace Assholes. http://bobsutton.typepad.com/
3Are you a certifiable asshole? http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/
Book Review - Harvard Business Review on Culture and Change - Evan Luckey
The Harvard Business Review (HBR) is a general management magazine covering a wide array of management topics. It is considered a leader in providing management theories from well known scholars and management thinkers. This paperback is just one in a series of 34, known as the “Harvard Business Review Paperback Series”. The intent of the series is to “bring today’s managers and professionals the fundamental information they need to stay competitive in a fast-moving world” and is aimed at “ambitious businesspeople.”
“Culture and Change” covers the difficult topic of changing corporate culture by providing a diverse compilation of eight previously published HBR articles:
-When and why do good teams go wrong? (Paul F. Levy) -How to change a "culture of face time"? (Bill Munck) -What is the "radical reason" people won't change? (Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey) -How can radical change be achieved "the quiet way"? (Debra E. Meyerson) -Why do good companies go bad? (Donald L. Sull, 1999) -How to transform a conservative company "one laugh at a time"? (Katherine M. Hudson,) -When does a culture need a makeover? (Carol Lavin Bernick) -How to conquer a culture of indecision? (Ram Charan)
Ultimately, what the reader gets are top-grade articles, written by top-notch authors, which provide clear and actionable tools that can be used to identify corporate culture problems and models to effectively change company culture.
Each chapter contains an executive summary; a case or examples; and frameworks, models, or tests. The executive summaries are much appreciated and provide a nice and clear summary of the highlights and topic areas included. They are also extremely helpful when needing to go back and find information. The reader will enjoy the cases and numerous examples provided in each article. The cases and examples were found to be relevant and provided a nice context for further understanding the theories of each author.
The style of the book and each article affects the reading experience. In essence, Culture and Change has a wide breadth, but a short depth. This lends to both positives and negatives, but is ultimately left up to style preference of the reader. In my opinion, I enjoy the wide breadth because I am provided a diverse set of ideas from a diverse set of authors. It’s obvious the book was carefully pieced together to offer as much diversity as possible and cover important and interesting issues covering culture and change. On the flipside, the lack of depth doesn’t provide a deep understanding of the issues at hand. The reader is given short and sweet, but packed, insights into the issues. More than once I found that right I was getting into the meat of the subject, the article would then come to a close. I was left wanting to know more, but interested enough to go and find additional reading. To make up for this shortfall, some articles provided notes that pointed to additional reading, a major plus in my opinion.
Additionally, the format and compilation of articles, allowed the book to be easily broken up and read in chunks. This is excellent for any busy person that has short time periods to read. One doesn’t have to spend time going back and re-reading material to familiarize and get “caught-up” because the articles are easily read in one session.
I also felt the stories and examples were personal in nature. Most of the time, the authors were writing in the first person and I believe this allowed for a more enjoyable reading experience.
Most importantly, I felt the models and frameworks given were actionable. For example, in the article “The Real Reasons People Won’t Change” by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey, provides a nice three step process for determining what is keeping people from change. They provide a set of questions to ask employees to uncover competing commitments, how to examine the underlying assumptions and then ideas how to change behavior. I feel that this “actionable” feel is a major asset to this book and is what makes it extremely valuable for change agents. So many times, while reading management articles, I am left with thinking to myself, “This sounds nice, but HOW?” “Culture and Change repeatedly answers that question.
I would recommend this book to anyone who believes in the value of corporate culture, its complexities, and understands it importance in the workplace; individuals that are fascinated by how and why people behave; and people that are looking for a good start in the area surrounding the topic of changing company culture.
It’s extremely hard to give criticism to such enjoyable reading from well-known and brilliant management thinkers. The Harvard Business School Press is well experienced in producing such top quality books and articles and “Culture and Change” is no exception. The reader is given clear, concise and actionable tools framed around relevant and enjoyable cases from top-notch authors.
“Culture and Change” covers the difficult topic of changing corporate culture by providing a diverse compilation of eight previously published HBR articles:
-When and why do good teams go wrong? (Paul F. Levy) -How to change a "culture of face time"? (Bill Munck) -What is the "radical reason" people won't change? (Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey) -How can radical change be achieved "the quiet way"? (Debra E. Meyerson) -Why do good companies go bad? (Donald L. Sull, 1999) -How to transform a conservative company "one laugh at a time"? (Katherine M. Hudson,) -When does a culture need a makeover? (Carol Lavin Bernick) -How to conquer a culture of indecision? (Ram Charan)
Ultimately, what the reader gets are top-grade articles, written by top-notch authors, which provide clear and actionable tools that can be used to identify corporate culture problems and models to effectively change company culture.
Each chapter contains an executive summary; a case or examples; and frameworks, models, or tests. The executive summaries are much appreciated and provide a nice and clear summary of the highlights and topic areas included. They are also extremely helpful when needing to go back and find information. The reader will enjoy the cases and numerous examples provided in each article. The cases and examples were found to be relevant and provided a nice context for further understanding the theories of each author.
The style of the book and each article affects the reading experience. In essence, Culture and Change has a wide breadth, but a short depth. This lends to both positives and negatives, but is ultimately left up to style preference of the reader. In my opinion, I enjoy the wide breadth because I am provided a diverse set of ideas from a diverse set of authors. It’s obvious the book was carefully pieced together to offer as much diversity as possible and cover important and interesting issues covering culture and change. On the flipside, the lack of depth doesn’t provide a deep understanding of the issues at hand. The reader is given short and sweet, but packed, insights into the issues. More than once I found that right I was getting into the meat of the subject, the article would then come to a close. I was left wanting to know more, but interested enough to go and find additional reading. To make up for this shortfall, some articles provided notes that pointed to additional reading, a major plus in my opinion.
Additionally, the format and compilation of articles, allowed the book to be easily broken up and read in chunks. This is excellent for any busy person that has short time periods to read. One doesn’t have to spend time going back and re-reading material to familiarize and get “caught-up” because the articles are easily read in one session.
I also felt the stories and examples were personal in nature. Most of the time, the authors were writing in the first person and I believe this allowed for a more enjoyable reading experience.
Most importantly, I felt the models and frameworks given were actionable. For example, in the article “The Real Reasons People Won’t Change” by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey, provides a nice three step process for determining what is keeping people from change. They provide a set of questions to ask employees to uncover competing commitments, how to examine the underlying assumptions and then ideas how to change behavior. I feel that this “actionable” feel is a major asset to this book and is what makes it extremely valuable for change agents. So many times, while reading management articles, I am left with thinking to myself, “This sounds nice, but HOW?” “Culture and Change repeatedly answers that question.
I would recommend this book to anyone who believes in the value of corporate culture, its complexities, and understands it importance in the workplace; individuals that are fascinated by how and why people behave; and people that are looking for a good start in the area surrounding the topic of changing company culture.
It’s extremely hard to give criticism to such enjoyable reading from well-known and brilliant management thinkers. The Harvard Business School Press is well experienced in producing such top quality books and articles and “Culture and Change” is no exception. The reader is given clear, concise and actionable tools framed around relevant and enjoyable cases from top-notch authors.
Book Review - Managing Change and Transition - Usha Jose
One of the very popular books in Harvard Business Essentials series, ‘Managing Change and Transition’ emphasizes the importance of successfully implementing change initiatives in order to sustain progress. The book communicates very strongly and ingenuously how settling into routines can be detrimental to progress. Change often surfaces as a stranger, leaving everyone around to guess at least some of the details involved. This, along with the comfort of complacency makes many organizations averse to change. Nevertheless change is essential for progress. After reading it, I consider “Managing Change and Transition” as a mine of practical wisdom in change management.
Most of the times organizations dealing with change do not have a pleasant experience because they are not prepared for it. The book opens with a comprehensive description of different types of change and how different strategies help to effectively deal with them. It also gives valuable advice on how to manage change constructively and to ride the waves of change without causing much collateral damage. The book offers an excellent explanation of Theory ‘O’ and ‘E’ which makes a very interesting reading. Theory E change is intended to increase shareholder value dramatically and mostly is triggered by financial crisis. The book sites Jack Welch’s 25 percent head count reduction in GE as an example of this kind of change. Theory O change is more a change strategy for good times, with no real ‘do or die’ situation propelling it. Usually such change efforts are undertaken by companies “to invigorate their cultures and capabilities.” Neither Theory E nor O can guarantee success always, but when used wisely in right proportions and at right times, it makes a lethal combination in taking the organization to new heights. The acquaintance with these theories will help us to analyze any change situation on a new platform and help us in deciding if the change is appropriate and if the organization is ready for it.
The highlight of the book is the discussion of seven steps in change management. The discussion entails a new approach towards change efforts which, if followed rigorously can help organizations in successfully implementing change. According to the author, any effective change starts by identifying and clearly defining the business problem. The answer to ‘Why should we make this change happen?’ can be the greatest motivating factor and its validity goes a long way in determining project success. In defining the problem and developing a solution to it, it is important to involve all those who will be affected by the change. The second step in change management is to develop a shared vision of the proposed change and its implications. The vision should not be confined to lofty ideas, but should be something that can be recognized by employees as achievable. In the third step the change leadership is identified. The change leader is the champion of the cause, who procures resources and takes responsibility of the success or failure of the project. Change leaders share not only a deep belief in change but also good people skills and organizational know how. The fourth step described in the book imparts great practical wisdom to change leaders. It urges us to focus on results, and not just on activities. There is no point in conducting countless meetings or producing document after document if it is not contributing to the advancement of the project. The criteria here should be solid contributions to bottom line performance rather than a mere count of activities. Another important step in dealing with change efforts is to start change at the periphery. Changing the entire organization at once is much difficult and less likely to succeed. In the next step the author also reminds change leaders to ‘institutionalize success through formal policies, systems and structures’ and not to let the hard earned gains slip away by not being proactive. Adjusting strategies in response to new problems in the change process is the seventh step as pointed out in the book. It is not unusual to confront unanticipated problems ion change efforts. A flexible and adaptive approach will help in dealing with the situation. The seven step change management process, as described in the book helps in preparing readers with a structured and organized approach towards change. Nurturing a structured approach towards change is invaluable when stepping into an undefined and almost chaotic state of affairs which characterizes every change effort.
The book’s list of mistakes to avoid in change management can evoke a cynical response at first glance. It makes you think if it is like providing a list of potential risk factors to an experienced project manager. Of course it will be too naïve to follow the list as it is, without anticipating other challenges. The list is not the ‘be- all and end- all’ which we can check mark and seal off. Situations and challenges vary from change project to change project. One advice from the list that draws special attention is not to impose a canned solution developed somewhere else. The book also warns against ‘driving a company wide solution driven from the top’. I find this part very relevant because a beginner can use this advice as a warning against some of the possible pitfalls.
A very good aspect of this book is its concern for social and human factors involved in change scenarios. It gives good practical advice about making change initiatives less painful for the people involved. Change can materialize in any form- a merger, new technology, or a new leader. It can be very stressful for those affected by change, and tremendous support is very much needed and appreciated at these times of crisis. This opens up opportunities for mangers to step in and help in alleviating employee stress. In the same vain, the book also stresses the importance of communication in organizations especially when dealing with change. The discussion about the level of influence managers can have in changing the “here- we -go -again” attitude of employees towards change is also very perceptive. In ensuring a pleasant change experience it is important to consider the impact the change brings to employees as well.
Another great attribute of the book is its excellent use of examples. Rather than just stating dry facts, statistics or theories, it successfully merges core information with relevant and interesting examples, thus making it appealing to the average reader as well. The choice of examples is very appropriate and illuminating. It not only drives home the essentials of change management but also gives a good flavor of different change management efforts. I was particularly impressed by Shackleton’s Antarctic expedition example. How Shackleton managed his team during the time of ultimate crisis is a wonderful example and motivation for change managers. His remarkable change management strategy caused a miracle to happen in a situation where many would have failed. The people on his ship returned home safely after spending 15 months stuck in the ice. The use of this and several other examples illustrate how the book manages to grab reader appeal even when dealing with monotonous change management issues.
Though the book does not really create any point of contention, I slightly disagree with the author for drawing parallels between change and death. In some cultures death is a reason for throwing a party, but in most other cases death inflicts a deep sense of irrecoverable loss. Neither change nor the reaction to it can be fairly compared to death or the emotions it evokes. There are lots of times when people consider change as a welcome gift. Who would not want to see their organization and themselves in a better and successful position? Change can be disruptive, but it cannot be classified as an unwelcome guest all the times. The authors’ intention was not to compare change to death, but the reactions they evoke. I say that the preliminary shock that death gives and a change announcement give is poles apart. The shock that comes as a reaction to change announcements is more like an inertia to move out of complacency rather than a total numbing of senses. Change can be many times positive, even if it is stressful, there are people all excited about change and the opportunities that tides it. I believe ‘organizational madness’ referred to in ‘Charging Back up the Hill’ by Mitchell Lee Marks is a more rightful term to refer to reactions to change efforts.
The idea of continuous change discussed in the book is very insightful. I support the author’s preference to small continuous changes to one big jolt of change. Facts and experience prove that change is something businesses should anticipate and be prepared for, if they don’t want to deal with unhappy crises. Managers can prepare people and organization for small continuous changes. This involves anticipating change and recognizing it as a progress agent. If changes are not implemented regularly it will put us back into complacency mode which is abruptly broken when met with a crisis.
There is a plethora of books on change management, but what makes this book stand out is its exceptional presentation of the subject matter. It compiles the best information on change management in a readable and practical format. Its numerous practical tips interspersed with convincing examples make a very good reading. The book does not claim to make you an expert in change management, but it prepares the readers to deal with change in a better fashion. It is least pretentious in and is not written in an attempt to impress academia. It is an excellent book for beginners, stripped out of all unnecessary complexities, written in a very lucid style, educating you thoroughly about the essentials of change management.
References
1. Richard Luecke, (2003) Managing Change and Transition: Harvard Business Essentials, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
2. Mitchell Lee Marks(2002) Charging Back Up the Hill: Workplace Recovery After Merges, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA
Most of the times organizations dealing with change do not have a pleasant experience because they are not prepared for it. The book opens with a comprehensive description of different types of change and how different strategies help to effectively deal with them. It also gives valuable advice on how to manage change constructively and to ride the waves of change without causing much collateral damage. The book offers an excellent explanation of Theory ‘O’ and ‘E’ which makes a very interesting reading. Theory E change is intended to increase shareholder value dramatically and mostly is triggered by financial crisis. The book sites Jack Welch’s 25 percent head count reduction in GE as an example of this kind of change. Theory O change is more a change strategy for good times, with no real ‘do or die’ situation propelling it. Usually such change efforts are undertaken by companies “to invigorate their cultures and capabilities.” Neither Theory E nor O can guarantee success always, but when used wisely in right proportions and at right times, it makes a lethal combination in taking the organization to new heights. The acquaintance with these theories will help us to analyze any change situation on a new platform and help us in deciding if the change is appropriate and if the organization is ready for it.
The highlight of the book is the discussion of seven steps in change management. The discussion entails a new approach towards change efforts which, if followed rigorously can help organizations in successfully implementing change. According to the author, any effective change starts by identifying and clearly defining the business problem. The answer to ‘Why should we make this change happen?’ can be the greatest motivating factor and its validity goes a long way in determining project success. In defining the problem and developing a solution to it, it is important to involve all those who will be affected by the change. The second step in change management is to develop a shared vision of the proposed change and its implications. The vision should not be confined to lofty ideas, but should be something that can be recognized by employees as achievable. In the third step the change leadership is identified. The change leader is the champion of the cause, who procures resources and takes responsibility of the success or failure of the project. Change leaders share not only a deep belief in change but also good people skills and organizational know how. The fourth step described in the book imparts great practical wisdom to change leaders. It urges us to focus on results, and not just on activities. There is no point in conducting countless meetings or producing document after document if it is not contributing to the advancement of the project. The criteria here should be solid contributions to bottom line performance rather than a mere count of activities. Another important step in dealing with change efforts is to start change at the periphery. Changing the entire organization at once is much difficult and less likely to succeed. In the next step the author also reminds change leaders to ‘institutionalize success through formal policies, systems and structures’ and not to let the hard earned gains slip away by not being proactive. Adjusting strategies in response to new problems in the change process is the seventh step as pointed out in the book. It is not unusual to confront unanticipated problems ion change efforts. A flexible and adaptive approach will help in dealing with the situation. The seven step change management process, as described in the book helps in preparing readers with a structured and organized approach towards change. Nurturing a structured approach towards change is invaluable when stepping into an undefined and almost chaotic state of affairs which characterizes every change effort.
The book’s list of mistakes to avoid in change management can evoke a cynical response at first glance. It makes you think if it is like providing a list of potential risk factors to an experienced project manager. Of course it will be too naïve to follow the list as it is, without anticipating other challenges. The list is not the ‘be- all and end- all’ which we can check mark and seal off. Situations and challenges vary from change project to change project. One advice from the list that draws special attention is not to impose a canned solution developed somewhere else. The book also warns against ‘driving a company wide solution driven from the top’. I find this part very relevant because a beginner can use this advice as a warning against some of the possible pitfalls.
A very good aspect of this book is its concern for social and human factors involved in change scenarios. It gives good practical advice about making change initiatives less painful for the people involved. Change can materialize in any form- a merger, new technology, or a new leader. It can be very stressful for those affected by change, and tremendous support is very much needed and appreciated at these times of crisis. This opens up opportunities for mangers to step in and help in alleviating employee stress. In the same vain, the book also stresses the importance of communication in organizations especially when dealing with change. The discussion about the level of influence managers can have in changing the “here- we -go -again” attitude of employees towards change is also very perceptive. In ensuring a pleasant change experience it is important to consider the impact the change brings to employees as well.
Another great attribute of the book is its excellent use of examples. Rather than just stating dry facts, statistics or theories, it successfully merges core information with relevant and interesting examples, thus making it appealing to the average reader as well. The choice of examples is very appropriate and illuminating. It not only drives home the essentials of change management but also gives a good flavor of different change management efforts. I was particularly impressed by Shackleton’s Antarctic expedition example. How Shackleton managed his team during the time of ultimate crisis is a wonderful example and motivation for change managers. His remarkable change management strategy caused a miracle to happen in a situation where many would have failed. The people on his ship returned home safely after spending 15 months stuck in the ice. The use of this and several other examples illustrate how the book manages to grab reader appeal even when dealing with monotonous change management issues.
Though the book does not really create any point of contention, I slightly disagree with the author for drawing parallels between change and death. In some cultures death is a reason for throwing a party, but in most other cases death inflicts a deep sense of irrecoverable loss. Neither change nor the reaction to it can be fairly compared to death or the emotions it evokes. There are lots of times when people consider change as a welcome gift. Who would not want to see their organization and themselves in a better and successful position? Change can be disruptive, but it cannot be classified as an unwelcome guest all the times. The authors’ intention was not to compare change to death, but the reactions they evoke. I say that the preliminary shock that death gives and a change announcement give is poles apart. The shock that comes as a reaction to change announcements is more like an inertia to move out of complacency rather than a total numbing of senses. Change can be many times positive, even if it is stressful, there are people all excited about change and the opportunities that tides it. I believe ‘organizational madness’ referred to in ‘Charging Back up the Hill’ by Mitchell Lee Marks is a more rightful term to refer to reactions to change efforts.
The idea of continuous change discussed in the book is very insightful. I support the author’s preference to small continuous changes to one big jolt of change. Facts and experience prove that change is something businesses should anticipate and be prepared for, if they don’t want to deal with unhappy crises. Managers can prepare people and organization for small continuous changes. This involves anticipating change and recognizing it as a progress agent. If changes are not implemented regularly it will put us back into complacency mode which is abruptly broken when met with a crisis.
There is a plethora of books on change management, but what makes this book stand out is its exceptional presentation of the subject matter. It compiles the best information on change management in a readable and practical format. Its numerous practical tips interspersed with convincing examples make a very good reading. The book does not claim to make you an expert in change management, but it prepares the readers to deal with change in a better fashion. It is least pretentious in and is not written in an attempt to impress academia. It is an excellent book for beginners, stripped out of all unnecessary complexities, written in a very lucid style, educating you thoroughly about the essentials of change management.
References
1. Richard Luecke, (2003) Managing Change and Transition: Harvard Business Essentials, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
2. Mitchell Lee Marks(2002) Charging Back Up the Hill: Workplace Recovery After Merges, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Book Review – Leading Change – Jun Shao
Leading Change. Edited by John P. Kotter. Boston , MA Harvard Business School
The world is keeping changing. Powerful macroeconomic forces have driven tremendous changes in the recent two decades. Business organizations used to work in a slow-moving and less competitive world. Now those organizations are suffering great pain of changes when exposed in the volatile circumstance. John Kotter’s book Leading Change attempt to offer an eight step process to help organizations to adjust to shifting conditions. Furthermore, Kotter differentiates management and leadership. Then he points out that leadership is the driving force behind the multistage process.
At the beginning of the book, Kotter mentions eight most common errors of change failures.
- Allowing too much complacency,
- Failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition,
- Underestimating the power of vision,
- Undercommunicating the vision by a factor of 10 (or 100 or even 1,000),
- Permitting obstacles to block the new vision,
- Failing to create short-term wins,
- Declaring victory too soon,
- Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporation culture.
Then he proposes an eight stage change process associated with those errors as follows.
- Establishing a sense of urgency,
- Creating a guiding coalition,
- Developing a vision and strategy,
- Communicating the change vision,
- Empowering employees for broad-based action,
- Generating short-term wins,
- Consolidating gains and producing more change,
- Anchoring new approaches in the culture.
The process is not only a solution but also a three part framework described as follows.
1. Defrost the status quo
It is a plan phase which comprises the first four steps.
First, leaders must establish a sense of urgency. They notice vulnerabilities in organizations and thus the thread of losing ground sparks them into action. It is the impetus of changes at the very beginning. Leaders will examine market or competitive realities and identify an urgent need in terms of a crisis, potential crisis or great opportunity.
The second step is to form a guiding coalition. Change can start with even one single leader in a short term. However, in order to direct through the existing hierarchy, it is necessary to set up a dedicated group of influential leaders throughout the organization in the long run. Without sufficient influence and power, the group will lead only apparent changes. Over time, opposite forces will gain strength and snuff out the effort.
Third, leaders must create a vision. Once people accept the urgency, they want a clear direction to a better future of changes. A vision helps to clarify the direction.
The fourth step, alluded to above, is to communicate the vision. A successful transmission rests on a vision that is relatively easy to communicate and appeals to customers, stockholders, and employees. Leaders must communicate the vision through their actions.
In all, the plan phase is that leaders drive change preparations in their organizations.
2. Taking actions that bring about change
It is an action phase in the time dimension which has three following steps.
The first step is to empower employees to act on the vision. Leaders must clear the way for employees to develop new ideas and approaches without being stymied by the old ways.
The second step is to plan for and create short-term wins. People will experience loss of momentum if they only follow a vision during changes. Leaders can plan and achieve some short-term wins which validate the employee effort and maintain the level of urgency.
The third step arises from the second. Leaders consolidate improvements and keep the momentum of moving changes. Premature victory celebrations can quash the momentum and allow the forces of tradition to regain their hold. Leaders must go into the process believing that their efforts will take years. Also, Short-term wins are stepping-stones to greater opportunities and bigger wins, all consistent with the vision driving the overall effort.
3. Anchor the changes in the corporate culture
The third phase has one single step. It is change effort in the dimension of organization culture. Kotter thinks that the cultural change, as difficult as it may be, must come last and not first. To try and put the culture in limbo first and then change the system is to put the entire organization at great risk. Too many negatives can creep in along with it. Instead, he says, it is better to go in and articulate what must be changed, implement the changes, and then alter the culture around that.
In summary, Kotter offers these tips to remember when anchoring change in the culture
- Culture change comes last not first,
- It depends on results,
- It requires a lot of talk,
- It may involve turnover,
- It makes decisions on succession crucial,
The above is the entire eight stage process framework. The other part of the book is the implications of the twenty-first century. It is divided into two parts.
1. The circumstance of leaders: The organization of the future
Kotter affirms that future organizations must possess certain fundamental traits if they intend to survive in the 21st century.
1. A persistent sense of urgency
2. Teamwork at the top
3. People who can create and communicate vision
4. Broad-based empowerment
5. Delegated management for excellent short-term performance
6. No unnecessary interdependence
7. An adaptive corporate culture
Most traits are associated with the eight stage process framework. Inherently, change has its organization context. As mentioned in the book, change cannot be directed through the current hierarchy. The new traits enable the process run smoothly at a relatively low operation cost.
2. The internal characteristics: Leadership and lifelong learning
Leadership is not a divine gift of birth. People can gain it through their lifelong learning. There are five key characteristics exhibited by life-long learners.
- The propensity to take risk
- Humble self-reflection
- Aggressive solicitation of opinions from others
- Careful listening
- Openness to new ideas.
Through the use of these techniques, life-long learners are able to fully exploit the benefits of compound learning and eventually become the transformational leaders that they sought to be.
Kotter is a professor of leadership at the
Different Dimensions
I recommend the book because of Kotter’s innovative insight of changes in the dimension of people. The challenge today is that change is no longer an organization problem. The current socioeconomic activities emphasize human factors much greater than usual. Change involves people, and can call up emotions, uncertainties and inconsistencies.
It is interesting that we can find some similarities between Kotter’s process model and Kurt Levin’s change process[1]. Kurt Lewin is an American social psychologist. In the 1940s, he developed a model to describe changes as a three-stage process. The first stage he called "unfreezing". It involved overcoming inertia and dismantling the existing "mind set". In the second stage the change occurs. The third and final stage he called "freezing". The new mindset is crystallizing and one's comfort level is returning to previous levels. This is often misquoted as "refreezing". Kotter’s model suggests a similar three-part framework. Thus we can say that the eight stage process has a psychology background of human beings.
The book does not go into detail of psychology. Kotter want to keep his book simple and stay away from jargons. However, it is still a good practice to introduce analysis of people during changes. The nature of human being is too complex to explore in one book. Actually Kotter’s another book The Heart of Change, the follow up of Leading Change, talks about people during changes in another perspective, emotion.
Furthermore, I would like to mention that besides people, we can explore changes in three other dimensions.
1. Context
As we discussed in class, context is essential to changes. Change can not be isolated from its time, location, and etc. For example, as one element of context, different culture results in different expectations. Thus people might have different views of wins. In the
2. Organization
Organizations have different best practices of changes. Obviously, product oriented organizations are very different from project oriented organizations. Business organizations and non-profit organizations are quite different. For example, some organizations like to delegate powers to their frontier employees. Those people even have more power than their managers in certain areas. Therefore, instead of 3 or 5 people as recommended, a power collation might consist of 50 people which make inter-communication heavily loaded.
3. Change characteristics
Each change has its uniqueness. As Kotter mentioned, previous predictable changes are manageable while current fast-pace ones prefer leadership. Some changes might be too simple to adopt the eight stage process while others might iterate the process hundreds of times. For example, we will not expect any short-term wins step if the change has to been done in one day.
Management and Leadership
Kotter differentiates management and leadership clearly. The fundamental purpose of management is to keep the current system functioning. Management is about coping with complexity. The fundamental purpose of leadership is to produce useful change, especially non-incremental change. Leadership is about coping with change.
Most
Changes always have unchanged elements. The first personal computer in the world, the IBM 5100, still has an old typewriter style keyboard. Furthermore, change is based on the unchanged. Therefore management is still necessary. In fact, successful companies must balance stability with change to thrive in both the short term and the long term.
Different change situations require diverse change strategies. Even when we have great leadership, we still can not assure the success of changes. Some cases might be too complex to lead. Some cases might be too volatile to manage. Some cases might consist of so many different change types that we have to combine management and leadership together.
Some large organizations might run several changes simultaneously and those changes might have either competitive or collaborative relationship with others. In that case management might be more efficient to handle within organizations than leadership.
In all, we explore management in the three above dimensions (change characteristics, context, and organization) and find management is still necessary during changes. Thus we shall make the balance.
Conclusion
It is an innovative book to explore changes from the perspective of leadership. Readers might be incited to explore changes from other perspectives, such as context.
The book is easy to read. Kotter illustrates his concepts with many examples, some from well-known companies such as American Express, Kodak, and Procter & Gamble, and others such as a typical day in the life of a successful executive. It is easy to understand and practice. Therefore readers can use the simple eight stage process to solve most complex problems. However, contrary to Kotter, we might not exclude management but make a balance between management and leadership during changes.
[1] Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2007). Kurt Lewin - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved
Book Review – How to Win Friends & Influence People - Daylen Thane
Book Review – “How to Win Friends & Influence People” by Dale Carnegie
Winning friends in your organization and learning how to influence people are the foundations of making change happen. When you are trying to initiate change as an Information Manager, you invariably have to get buy-in from your employees, and if you want to do it right, you need to read “How to Win Friends & Influence People”. This book was written for everyone wanting to better their people skills and have a fulfilling life with friends and happiness. I had heard great things about this book before, but nothing compares with the experience of reading it and applying it to everyday life. Most of the book consists of suggestions that you probably have heard before, but Dale brings his recommendations to life in a new way by showing successful examples of using these principles over and over again. The most striking part of this great book is that its core is based on the Golden Rule: ”treat others as you would like to be treated”; everything comes back to being nice and treating people fairly.
I was really impressed to see things pointed out to me that I have never thought about, even though after reading them they actually made perfect sense. The book was written in a very easy to read manner, entertaining, and is one of those books that really gets to you and makes you want to be different, a much better person. It is filled with countless examples of people being successful at “winning friends and influencing people” by following Dale’s recommendations and principles. Reading these examples made the book more realistic, and made me think that by practicing these guidelines I can actually attain similar results, i.e. influence people while making friends.
As change mangers, I don’t necessarily believe that our goal is to become friends with our employees, but it is essential to obtain their respect and admiration so change efforts take place; and what better way to do this than by being able to influence our employees and customers? The author gives many examples where people obtain what they want or need by changing others’ behaviors. I consider this information vital as we advance in our careers as Change and Information Managers.
Dale divides the book in four parts. Below I am listing a summary of each part with the priceless advice he gives, my personal opinion of each, and how I believe these suggestions would make us better Change and Information Managers:
· Part One: Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
o Don’t criticize, condemn, or complain – After reading the first couple of pages of this chapter, my first thought was: “How do we correct behaviors if we can’t criticize them?” I am really glad that Dale gave plenty of suggestions and examples where behaviors get changed without criticism, since this is useful information I can, without any doubts, use in my daily life.
o Give honest and sincere appreciation – Dale stresses the fact that complimenting others must be sincere. He argues that people can see right through insincerity, and using mere flattery can have negative consequences against your character. During this chapter, he introduces the phrase “be hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise” which he continues to often use throughout the rest of the book. Furthermore, he also gives another great piece of advice that I must not leave out of this book review. He says to always remember this old saying: “I shall pass this way but once; any good, therefore, that I can do or any kindness that I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.” I am really glad he included this advice in the book, as it is one of the most uplifting pieces of information I have ever read, and I would be very fortunate in my life if I remember to apply it constantly.
If we frequently give honest and sincere appreciation during our managing career, the people we interact with will be more open to our ideas and constructive criticism (but remember to keep this last one at a minimum), which will allow us to obtain their collaboration when we need it.
o Arouse in the other person an eager want – It is really interesting how the author points out how people are only interested in what they want; and the only way to effectively get them to bide your desires is by arousing an eager want in them. As Change Agents, this information is extremely important for us since we can use it to our advantage by guiding people to change because they want to, and not because we think it is necessary and it needs to happen.
· Part Two:
Part Two is composed of six chapters. These chapters encapsulate the following points: “Become genuinely interested in other people, Smile, Remember that a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language, Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves, Talk in terms of the other person’s interests, and Make the other person feel important– and do it sincerely”. Again and again, Dale shows countless examples where people use these suggestions to successfully be liked by others. Even though you don’t have to be friends with people to work with them, you will be a more successful manager if they like you and admire you. Thus, it is a good idea to “make people like you”.
After reading this part of the book, I started noticing how people truly enjoy talking about themselves. I highly believe that we can successfully utilize this information if we learn to be genuinely interested in other people and in what they have to say. Furthermore, when we listen to others’ ideas, we can learn a lot from them. One key point of being a manger is portraying ourselves as open to communication and discussion, so our colleagues feel comfortable talking to us.
· Part Three and Four of the book probably have the most value to us, as Information Managers. Part Three is titled: Win People to your Way of Thinking, and part Four: Be a Leader. During these parts of the book Dale shows us ways of changing people and becoming someone who is admired and followed. He starts by telling us that the only way to win an argument is by not getting involved in one. He also tells us to always show respect. I truly believe in showing respect since that’s the best method for getting people to respect you back. I recently read a Project Management research paper in which skilled negotiators are studied, and all these successful negotiators applied each and every one of Dale’s recommendations from part three of the book. Furthermore, being a leader involves more than getting people to agree with you. The author tells us how to be a good leader by giving great suggestions such as: “Ask questions instead of giving direct orders, Make the other person happy about doing the thing you suggest, Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct, and others. I strongly believe that anyone can use these suggestions to “change” people and make their relationships more pleasant. More importantly, we can “change” them to get them onboard with the change management efforts we are trying to promote.
The recommendations about being a leader could specifically be applied to us, Information Managers, when trying to encourage people to use new information systems, or in any other Management role we may achieve in our career.
I highly think all of you would very much enjoy reading this excellent book. The author gives priceless suggestions that, if used every day (or regularly), could change our lives for the better. Not only do we have the potential to become better human beings, but we can also become great leaders and Change and Information Managers. “How to Win Friends & Influence People” will make you reflect about your actions, but overall, it will inspire you to change. The book is very fun and easy to read, and I am positive there is a lot you can learn from the countless examples of people who have succeeded at befriending others.
Book Review - Change Management in Information Services - Cen (Mia) Zhao
The book on Change Management in Information Services by Lyndon Pugh reminded me a lot of management issues we talked about in lectures including how to set up vision, organize team, empower action and build trust in organizations. They all emphasize on the role of people in implementing the change and in accepting it. Human being has been the key success factor for the whole changing process in the organizations. The author focuses on all the possibilities and methods to enlist support of organization’s members and to empower them, to make them responsible for the outcome of the change planning and implementation.
The book reflects the interest of the author in the topic, as well as his experience. Although written for information service specialists, it deals with general change management issues and covers various aspects: characteristics of change, organizational and change theories, change strategies, processes and models, team-work and leadership role in change management, psychology of change and skills.[1]
Among these topics, the key issue is how people react in face of the change in information services, especially the library services. In the book, Pugh points to the changes which have occurred as a result of digitization and the spread of the WWW, changing the relationship between librarian and user. With the development of digital libraries, more and more library services can be performed online so that people have to learn some computer skills to perform job they used to do. This book indicated that this will result in a change culture. However, there is an assumption underlying this: Staff will want to change. In reality, people do resist change, even when the reasons for it are cogent and indeed unanswerable. In the class, we have discussed different kinds of people who may be against and have negative attitudes towards the changes. Some people may have concerns about their possible benefits in the future while others are probably just not willing to try new stuff. As we all know, human beings always fear the unknown or uncertain things. Therefore, such resistance is hard to avoid in the real world.
Of course, one answer is that staff, if they will not change, is redundant. However, many organizations may have human resources policies which do not allow for mass dismissal and the re-hiring of more suitable people.[2] Apart from little mention of change being imposed from outside the information service, Pugh did not talk about the external and unalterable constraints. If we consider these limitations, the key issue will become how to make people change in the organizations. As we discussed in class, there are several possible ways to deal with that situation.
One of the most important ways, which is mentioned both in the book and class, is communication. In the book, Pugh emphasizes the importance of communication: both formal communication from the senior management team to other teams and the informal communications networks which exist within any medium-sized organization. Sometimes, informal communication will become more important in internal communication. Pugh draw a diagram related to relationship of organizational communication. In the diagram, everyone talks to almost everyone else, and all of them, except the Director of Media Services, whose only external contact is the Director of Information Services, will talk to people outside the group.
I would question that the real world may be different, which is much more unstructured. It is not enough to know whether everyone has internal or external connection. In order to make people change, we also need to 1) understand who is talking to whom, how frequently, and about what, 2) understand who is interacting with whom, how frequently, and in what ways and 3) identify the focal points of the network, on the basis of the number of exchanges and interactions individuals are involved in.2 This chapter also reminds me that issue we talked on class: small changes can have unpredictable and major impacts to the entire organization. In some cases, one small informal gathering or retreat will make people change their attitudes, which is the key success factor of the organizational change. What’s more, small changes here always occur during the informal communication. Usually, in the informal meeting or gathering, communication among employees will become much more efficient and effective. Use myself for example, I am more easily influenced my co-worker’s advice than formal announcement or news in company meeting.
The other important way, which is also discussed in the book, is leadership. The book did mention that managing the movement from the current position to the desired one, while maintaining the development of the organizations, is one of the primary tasks of leadership. Like what we talked in the class, leadership takes an important role in the change process. A lot of people will not change until somebody else step up and lead them to do. People need some directions when choices are there. Also, sometimes, people even will not think about that they have to change if no one says that out. In a lot of cases, lack of appropriate leadership makes change failure at the end.
I believe, no matter in leadership or in communication, the most important point is to build trust. What is trust? Trust is both and emotional and logical act. Emotionally, it is where you expose your vulnerabilities to people, but believing they will not take advantage of your openness. Logically, it is where you have assessed the probabilities of gain and loss, calculating expected utility based on hard performance data, and concluded that the person in question will behave in a predictable manner. In practice, trust is a bit of both. I trust you because I have experienced your trustworthiness and because I have faith in human nature[3]. So, trust could be built both through formal and informal communications. Logical way of trust could be attained via the report of work, meeting and other formal communication ways while emotional trust could be got from the informal way such as having a beer at the bar.
Also, it is the same with leadership. The results of work can build someone’s credibility as a leader. However, in a lot of situations, it is not enough. Like the case we talked about on class, the board member still felt threatened even the CEO did excellent job in the company. Why? The reason is that the emotional trust was not built among them. Board members felt threatened shows they still doubted whether CEO would do something wrong. With such concerns, they hoped to be well informed of things happening in the company and to let CEO slow down the speed of meeting. In this case, we can see that trust is not just based on the logical data and facts and emotional influence is also very important. Sometimes, it is even more important than logical trust. In order to build such trust, information communication is necessary among employees in the company.
One chapter that impressed me most is the psychology of change. This chapter focuses on the feelings of the staff involved in the change and the attitudes of managers and others involved in change initiatives. If we look further, we will see that actual change itself is the change of people and the change of people is actually the change of people’s attitudes. The process of changing people’s perceptions could be a iterate process that presented in the book. However, in my point of view, the psychological process is so complex that we cannot use structural model to predict them. Although we have some assumptions such as people would like to pursue the maximum profits, in reality, a lot of other factors will affect the process of people’s attitudes.
Given the whole impression of this book, I think this book is good at summarizing and generalizing the rules and principals of change management in information services. It is intended to be cutting-edge, state-of-the-art, and innovative approaches to participative change in organizational settings. However, since it is written to provide theory and advice to the application, what I would like to critique is that these theories live in an ideal world which is rarely reflected in any actual environment. It is more about what should be targeted at than how to achieve it. Pugh also pointed this out in his book:
'All change projects are unique. The variables of organizational characteristics, leadership, environmental influences and skills and competencies, for example, all act to change the weighting given to the various steps in the process.
Therefore, I believe every scenario has it own specific solutions. The theories and principals of change management might help organizations, including libraries, analyze some problem and target at some change aspects. But if we want to know how people and organization change in the real world, I believe the book still needs more case studies in the real world to help to explain these theories and to let us think further.
[1] Information Research.. (n.d.). Book Review: Change management in information services. Retrieved . , 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/reviews/revs279.html
[2] ARIADNE.. (n.d.). News and Reviews. Retrieved . , 2007, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue52/lovecy-rvw/
[3] ChangingMinds.org.. (n.d.). What is trust? Retrieved . , 2006, from http://changingminds.org/explanations/trust/what_is_trust.htm
Book Review - The machine that changed the world - Manaswita Manaswita
Book Review- The machine that changed the world by James P Womack, Daniel T Jones, Daniel Roos.
Introduction:
"The Machine That Changed the World" by James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones and Daniel Roos is a non-fictional book based on the research and thorough study conducted by the authors on the lean production system pioneered by Japanese automobile conglomerate Toyota Motor Corporation. The book is the end result of the continuous effort by the authors for five years, carried out in fourteen countries under the five million dollar project in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The study was started in 1985, when the authors raised funds to start the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) at the MIT. At that time Japanese automobile companies especially Toyota was gaining market shares because of their innovative technique of "lean production" and it seemed that auto industries of North America and Europe were having a hard time to transform from their old mass production system to Toyota's advanced lean production system, which became the key factor for the success of Toyota and which had already swept the world.
The Machine That Changed the World is not the book that directly relates to the principles of change management but it is an intense research attempt to delve into and to make the world aware of the fact that the lean production is acting as a change catalyst for the automotive industry worldwide and today the fate of other industries and nations depends on how agile they are in adapting to this strong innovative change. The book is considered the first one of its kind to coin the term “lean manufacturing” for
Reason for choosing this book and where does it fit in the perspective of Change Management:
As pointed out in the previous paragraph that it is not a core change management book, it is important at this point to put across my thought on why I chose this particular book for this assignment.
During my summer internship at LG Electronics in
I chose this book because I wanted to know more about the novel technique of lean manufacturing system and I wanted to relate the process to the concepts of change management that we either talk about in the class or read in the text book- The Heart of Change by John P. Kotter.
About the book:
"The Machine that Changed the World" is a deep and concentrated attempt by the authors to study the automotive industry and how the things changed in the industry from old days’ crafts production system to Henry Ford's mass assembly production system to Taiichi Ohno's lean production system. For the first time in the world one such study was conducted and a book was written. When Henry Ford pioneered the mass production system in his Ford Model T, it was considered a ground-breaking change for entire motor vehicle industry and "this manufacturing innovation made the assembly line possible" as pointed by the authors in page 27 of the book. The concept soon became the buzz-word across the nation, the world, the manufacturing industry and the workers and the consumers benefited as the cost was reduced. The mass production system replaced the crafts production system.
It took more than fifty years for the automotive industry across the globe to emulate the mass production system and no one realized that there could be another better way to manufacture the superior quality of goods in less cost until
Lean production is an example of the fact that the innovation is a continuous process and the catalyst that brings change. So, the innovation did not stop at mass production system, which at one time had changed the way things were made and produced. There was something beyond the mass production and today when everybody knows the secret behind
Key leanings from the book:
1. Changing trends in the automotive industry and how each trend ruled the industry for decades until it became obsolete. The new lean production system is the magic system these days and is now forcing either the companies to copy it or to come up with even more powerful tool than the lean production system.
2. The organizational culture is the way to make the change stick. The authors point out that Toyota’s corporate culture is fundamentally different from that of Western automotive companies because of its believe that the continuous improvement can be achieved in the process by having respect for suppliers, workers and customers.
3. The lean production system enables the manufacturers to build multiple vehicles at the same time unlike never changing product concept of mass manufacturing system.
4. Toyota Production System is pushing almost every industry across the world to change the way they work and it is a challenge for the managers to adapt and implement the change and move away from the obsolete system of production.
5. The book gives message to the Western companies as well as to the Japanese companies as they move abroad. The book suggests that implementing the lean production system is though critical for the companies to be successful in the long run, implementing it successfully makes a considerable demands on the managers involved, the economic climate, political trends, trade barriers, changes in the customer demands, management policy or structure and employment levels. One interesting issue that the book points to is about how Japanese producers themselves are one of the obstacles in implementation of their system across the world. A large fraction of managers with the knowledge of the system are Japanese and there is lack of transparency and way the foreigners are treated. “They lack a final and essential innovation: the ability to think and act globally than from a narrow national perspective” (pg 272). So, the book is not only about the trends in the automotive industry but also poses interesting managerial dilemma when it comes to the implementation of legendary changes.
6. The book overall is a very straightforward description and analysis of what the automotive industry went through. Even though some might think that the intention of the book is to make the automotive engineers, industrial engineers, manufacturing engineers understand the automotive and manufacturing industry, I strongly recommend the book to the managers as well so that they could know about the implications of the innovative strategies used by today’s some of the big names who have strived to remain ahead of time.
7. The book is fairly simple to read and though it was written and published in 1990 and many other books on lean manufacturing system have been published since then, The Machine that Changed the World is still considered helpful and valuable for the attention to detail kind of research the authors have done.
Book Review - Influencer: The Power to Change Anything - 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)
Introduction:
“Influencer: The Power to Change Anything” is a guide toward building the ability to influence others or one self. Written in collaboration of Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler—the leaders of VitalSmarts, a well-known consulting company for corporate training and organizational performance, it draws upon real cases of Master influencers (this is a term used several times in the book) changing people’s behavior and accomplishing difficult tasks from all over the world. The authors interviewed these Masters, analyzed these Masters’ work referencing academic studies, and presented the keys of their findings in this book.
The book begins by defining the term “Influencer” as a person who has successfully changed the behavior of large numbers of people in a positive direction. Then it expands the term to include anyone who would change behaviors of other people, whether in a family, a community, or in the business world. To be a true "influencer," you have to change your way of thinking. The real secret is not to concentrate on producing the outcome you desire; instead, you must focus on the behaviors that are responsible for producing that output. You will have to change behavior patterns in order to get the results you want. It takes work, experimentation, etc. but as long as you are in the right direction, you can ultimately lead to giant leaps in virtually any aspect of life.
The authors identify two major reasons why changes fail: (1) Questioning ability: The people involved do not feel capable of making the change. (2) Insufficient motivation: The people involved do not feel that the proposed change would be an improvement. To avoid these to happen, the book then talks about how to find what behaviors to change, how to change them by selecting key vital behaviors: while putting effort into changing a dozen of behaviors is never going to work, there are vital behaviors that can create a cascade of change. “It takes a combination of strategies aimed at a handful of vital behaviors to affect change in profound and persistent problems"(Influencers, Pg.76).From there it then talks about the “strategies”—abilities and motivations on personal level, social level, and structural level: “Make the Undesirable Desirable” (personal motivation), “Surpass Your Limits” (personal ability), “Harness Peer Pressure” (social motivation), “Find Strength in Numbers” (social ability), “Design Rewards and Demand Accountability” (structural motivation), “Change the Environment” (structural ability), and then become an influencer.
Influencer vs. Heart of Change
Despite how Influencer defined “Influencer” at the beginning of the book, I felt the book was more aimed at mangers or people wanting to initiate changes in large group of people than individuals. Hence, I thought to compare it with The Heart of change. Influencer talks about change from a very different perspective than from The Heart of Change. Influencer talks about elements in motivating changes but not the change management process. Since it is not about the process, the elements do not necessarily have dependence on each other or chronological relations. Although from two different perspectives, The Heart of Change and Influencer did not conflict each other in any way. The way I see it, The Heart of Change gives the step-by-step instruction of how to make changes, Influencer, on the other hand, states the must-know facts in starting a change. I felt it was a very nice follow up reading of what I have learned in The Heart of Change. It might be better if I read Influencer first because motivation comes before management in reality.
In fact, I felt the two books were complementary. Influencer recognized some key points that I felt were very important but were not mentioned in The Heart of Change. For example, finding the vital behaviors—“A few behaviors can drive a lot of change" (Influencer, Pg. 23)—this should take place before “increase urgency (step
Likes and Dislikes
One thing I really liked about Influencer was the examples that it used. As I have mentioned before, the ideas in Influencer are rather common sense than groundbreaking. However, the cases and true stories that revolve around the ideas were so powerful that it made me dream up my own scenarios and how the concepts would apply in my personal situations when I was reading the book.
While my favorite part of Influencer was these very powerful examples, ironically enough, repeatedly using these examples was one of the things I disliked about this book (more related discussions in following paragraphs). The example of Dr. Hopkins eradicating Guinea worm disease was the one that stroke me the most. Guinea worm disease is an infection caused by a worm-like parasite. There is no vaccine or medicine to cure this disease but there is a way to prevent it from spreading—changing the way people drink water and changing their behaviors. Before Dr. Hopkins declared his war against the
I was also very impressed with the depth of research shared in Influencer. It was intriguing to know that so many incredible change efforts from all over the world have used virtually the same strategies that were presented in this book. The authors used a number of studies to show how all it is trying to say works from a scientific standpoint, but they also have a large number of real-life situations that bring the concepts to real-life. An interesting point that was brought up in the book was how you can influence human behavior just by making even the smallest of changes inside a person's environment. It gave the example along with numbers from scientific studies of how the sizes of dishes can affect people eating more or less. It was a real-life experience that anybody could relate to. I would say the most impressive part of this book was the way that it outlined their research in such a “common sense” approach that nearly anyone could relate, follow and apply to their own situations.
Influencer was written in a listener-friendly, conversational tone. However, the structure of the book was weak and confusing. There were two examples—Dr. Hopkins eradicating Guinea worm disease and the Delancey rehabilitation organization— in the book that they returned to again and again, giving little chunks of information each time. I was very fascinated by the worm example at first but when it was mentioned the sixth or seventh time, it was not as exciting as it was. Even worst, the different concepts behind its being cited at different chapters started to blur into one. The book also jumped back and for the between topics too many times. Perhaps the authors were trying to write one book rather than 10 separate chapters, but I personally thought the book was confusing and long-winded. This also made me wonder the process of writing this book—was there a committee or was each author responsible for a few chapters?— since the book has five authors.
To Sum Up…
Despite its structure, over all, I felt Influencer was worth reading, it was an insightful, educational and entertaining book which presented points on what does and does not influence us or people. It would be even better if the book was shorter. After reading Influencer, I must admit that it hasn't radically changed my life, but it has given me a lot to think about. I would definitely recommend it to people who are facing the challenge of leading changes in any environment. I feel this book would be most useful to mangers since it is a guild book to becoming an influencer, a role each manger should be able and often needs to play. I do not think this book can give a quick fix to people in urgent need but it does inspire thinking. For those who are interested but need more information, the authors of Influencer built a website (http://www.influencerbook.com/) with short video interviews with some of the Masters mentioned in the book, a blog, and information about the upcoming book tour around the country.
Book Review - Leading in a Culture of Change - Sowjanya Kodidala
Leading in a Culture of Change, written by Michael Fullan, is about key changes that will help leaders of modern organizations to lead their businesses effectively and successfully. This book was awarded the Book of the Year Award by the National Staff Development Council in 2002.
In the current modern world, every organization is constantly changing and is facing a multitude of challenges with respect to changes. These changes can occur while making a new product or when getting people to get together for implementing a cross functional environment. Essentially, a change could come in any form; and to drive the change, an organization needs a leader. Fullan through this book offers five action items which will help the leaders to become effective leaders and be successful in bringing change. Fullan not only explains that there is a clear difference in management and leadership but also suggests that people need to be effective in both. He clearly states that the leadership is the ability to take problems that have no clear answers.
Fullan looked at the successful businesses and education institutions to find out if they have any common skills in leadership and came up with the following five strategies – moral purpose i.e. trying to make a difference, ability to understand the change process, develop relationships among different cultures of people, knowledge sharing and coherence making. These action items are linked to each other. Any of these action items missing in the organization would potentially not lead to a good leadership. The action items mentioned in the book not only helps us to improve the leadership skills but also acts as a guide to make a successful organization. Leading in a Culture of Change centers around leaders focusing on key changes that will allow them to lead effectively.
The leaders should have the capability to build relationships with employees as well as stakeholders. None of these relationships should be neglected. In my opinion, one of the most difficult tasks for any leader is building relationships among different diversities and trying to get ideas exchanged during the change process. Building relationships is a key skill that is required by a leader in any organization in order to succeed. The leader should keep in mind that if the relationships are not properly built, they can lead to major losses that cannot be regained. It is also very important for a leader to build trust among his employees and stakeholders for a successful change in organization.
In the current modern world, every organization is constantly changing and is facing a multitude of challenges with respect to changes. These changes can occur while making a new product or when getting people to get together for implementing a cross functional environment. Essentially, a change could come in any form; and to drive the change, an organization needs a leader. Fullan through this book offers five action items which will help the leaders to become effective leaders and be successful in bringing change. Fullan not only explains that there is a clear difference in management and leadership but also suggests that people need to be effective in both. He clearly states that the leadership is the ability to take problems that have no clear answers.
Fullan looked at the successful businesses and education institutions to find out if they have any common skills in leadership and came up with the following five strategies – moral purpose i.e. trying to make a difference, ability to understand the change process, develop relationships among different cultures of people, knowledge sharing and coherence making. These action items are linked to each other. Any of these action items missing in the organization would potentially not lead to a good leadership. The action items mentioned in the book not only helps us to improve the leadership skills but also acts as a guide to make a successful organization. Leading in a Culture of Change centers around leaders focusing on key changes that will allow them to lead effectively.
The leaders should have the capability to build relationships with employees as well as stakeholders. None of these relationships should be neglected. In my opinion, one of the most difficult tasks for any leader is building relationships among different diversities and trying to get ideas exchanged during the change process. Building relationships is a key skill that is required by a leader in any organization in order to succeed. The leader should keep in mind that if the relationships are not properly built, they can lead to major losses that cannot be regained. It is also very important for a leader to build trust among his employees and stakeholders for a successful change in organization.
If and only if a leader is able to implement all the four aforementioned action items i.e. moral purpose, understanding the change, building relationship and knowledge sharing, then he/she can deal with the last action item i.e. coherence making. Even if effective leaders are not able to reach a stable coherence state, implementing aforementioned action items would give rise to many models of coherence. To attain stability at complex situations and to make right decisions at right time requires great skills, the aforementioned five action items should be implemented by a leader. Leader would thus become efficient and leads the company to success.
I really like the way Fullan has summarized the concept in the book using the story of hare and tortoise. I felt that his choice of using this story as an analogy is very useful as people in most cultures knows this story and can relate to. The leaders with hare brained are about running after innovations without stopping; and leaders will tortoise brained are slow to absorbing disturbances and drawing out new ideas. According to Fullan, both approaches are not suitable to modern day leaders. The story explains that the changes taking place in the organization should not be as slow as tortoise or very fast like hare. The leaders should also consider the right time to push the action items in the organization. The leaders should be willing to spend the time and effort required for the change in the organization and also should be cautious to not neglect any of the mentioned action items. Neglecting any one of the action item weakens a good leader and eventually results in unsuccessful change. As the book clearly depicts, all the action items are linked to each other and are very practically applicable. If one link in the chain is not linked, then the change would be unsuccessful.
Fullan mentions that these five mindsets constitute the core components for effective changes that are required in both business and education. The five action items are interrelated and can be practically applicable. If any one of the action item is neglected it does not count for good leadership and the change would be not very successful in the organization.
I overall liked the book because the book presents the much modernized ideas, though the book was written in 2001. The ideas presented are very clearly explained using good examples and can be applied by leaders at any organization level. The examples used in the book convinced me that the aforementioned action items really help leaders to become effective.
I liked the fact that the author relates the book with day to day work and revises his work every ten years to have an updated version. This shows that he has a good sense of the changing technology people in the world. While talking about his research method, Fullan mentioned that he tried to find the common leadership skills applied in successful business and educational institutions and came up with the five core action items. Initially I did not agree that the business organizations and education institutions would have common skills but after reading the book I agreed with the author and got an idea of how these two different organizations could use same set of action items and still become successful.
Overall the book is very interesting, simple, and easy to read. It is written in a very understandable and the concepts in the book are entertaining and could be practically applicable by anyone. I suggest that the five core components aforementioned should be always kept in mind a good leader when implementing a change so it can be successful and rewarding. I really think that leaders of all organizations and people who are aspiring to become potential leaders should read this book to learn about implementing successful changes.
References
Book Review - Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies - Gints Salaks
The book itself is well written allowing the reader to follow through the authors’ train of thought. It begins by defining “visionary,” and describing their extensive research done to compile the findings. This establishes the authors’ expertise in the subject and informs the reader about any assumptions made. They even take the time to discredit popular myths of what makes a great company. The rest of the book is mostly used to provide guiding principles that the authors apparently derived from their findings. Collins and Porras attempt to support their principles by supplementing examples from within their research.
Collins and Porras have strong points on what makes a company successful, but there are several things about the book that would concern the reader. First of all, in reality there are no clear steps that guarantee a company to become successful or visionary. That is because each organization is different and influenced by various internal and external factors. Even if every organization was predisposed with the exact same factors, each company would respond differently to issues due to the organizations’ different business models and culture. I find it difficult to entertain the idea that one set of principles can guide some organization. When examining their data a little bit closer in their appendix, the reader will find that not all companies followed the same pattern or had the same habits.
My skepticism was further strengthened by their weak or incomplete data. In one example of this occurrence was when discussing core values, the authors compared Motorola to Zenith. Their argument was that Motorola did not have profits as their ultimate goal to success. They used a passage from Motorola’s ‘statement of purpose’ to support their idea. In their comparison, they stated Zenith did not pass on an enduring ideology and were only profits driven. However, they did not provide any documentation to support their argument. By omitting the data they skewed their findings to serve their purpose. Thus, the reader must takes them at their word and buy into their argument or be left confused.
Last but not least, if we were to consider their ideas, we will have to note that these ideas may not always apply. This is because they look primarily at organizations that originated in
The first principle that Collins and Porras describe is the importance of being a Clock Builder, not a Timekeeper, meaning that companies need to focus on making their organizations run smoothly and not just follow others. It stresses the importance of enabling the organization to succeed after the current CEO is gone. I found this principle idealistic but it is not always easy to obtain. Obviously, when one is short sited, one might overlook the long term consequences that can be detrimental to the organization. We see this often as executives strive to reach their short term demands and goals. Unfortunately, this might be something that the society will have to work on as a whole because of the shift in perceptions due to technology. Technology increases human performance which in turn increases expectations. The deliverables and results being expected sooner, translates in our increased need for instant gratification that carries over to our work ethics and goals. Thus, the way organizations functioned in the 1950s, may not be the way they function today.
The second principle the book reiterates is the importance of having a set of “Core Values,” that should be able to pass the test of time. The authors continue on to discuss how to preserve the company’s “Core Ideology.” The key is to keep the core values the same and modify the core ideology as needed. The authors use the ‘yin yang’ symbol to describe it. The third principle they discuss is the ‘Big Hairy Audacious Goals’ that visionary companies have. These goals are the extreme and risky goals that sometimes companies strive for. Looking at the principles, the reader might find these ideas to be complex but acceptable. The equation in the book states: Core Ideology = Core Values + Purpose.; where the Core Values are “the organization’s essential and enduring tenets… not to be compromised for financial gain or short-term expediency,” and the Purpose being, “the fundamental reasons for existence beyond just making money… not to be confused with specific goals or business strategies.” So if core ideology is comprised of core values, that can not be changed, and purpose, then the organization can only change their core ideology by changing their purpose. The word, ‘purpose,’ how I understood it in this context is referring to Vision. These principles confirm the ideas which were presented in Management of Change class. As companies continue to change and grow, they may change their business all together; as the example in the book, Express went from being in the freight train industry to the finance industry. It would only be logical to change there vision accordingly.
Collins and Porras make a point that visionary companies are not just determined by what goals or values the executives set but also the culture that is fostered within the organization. To make their point authors describe in detail some of the cult like cultures that companies create. Although the evidence they make is compelling, some readers might find it disturbing. When it reaches a point that it encourages employees to weed out outside connections and relationships, it can be detrimental to the employee. Although employees feel a strong sense of belonging, it is a false sense of security. In large organizations, employees, especially bottom level employees, are typically easily dispensable. Thus one must remember the underlining intention of the company is to increase profits and not necessarily the benefits of the employees.
The next principle that the book points out is similar to the previous one, to look inside the organization for promotions to management. The authors looked at the assumption that outsiders bring in new ideas and found that this idea was not necessarily true. One of the most important principles was to constantly innovate. With all this, the top management needs to make the core ideology a reality, not just talk. The book ends by providing an overview and insight to many companies and their bumpy road to success.
Overall, I must say I was both disappointed and pleasantly surprised by their findings. I went in expecting a grand revelation, and came to find, with some exceptions, the book reiterates many principles I find to be a common sense. Going back, I think this book would be appreciated not only by CEOs and managers but also by aspiring leaders.
Book Review - Harvard Business Review on Change - W. Max Eichbaum
A Cybernetic Accomplishment
Like most topical article collections from the Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business Review on Change is a survey of judiciously selected relevant works dealing with a common subject area. It contains eight twenty to thirty page articles focused on issues relating to organizational change. While the articles all share a common domain, each of them varies substantially in its scope, area of focus, approach and attitude. Still, there are themes that persist throughout the text and form an overarching dialog. It is this overarching dialog that illuminates complex issues rather than prescribing simple solutions and eventually sets this collection apart from being just another myopic book on change management.
The Individual Pieces
1. In Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Kotter highlights, in chronological order, the eight typical errors of change management efforts. His simplistic framework provides a good basis on which to later explore more complex issues.
2. In Building Your Company’s Vision, Collins and Porras build on the concept of vision and its role in any change management effort. They describe a framework for understanding the components of a successful vision. It is comprised of the organization’s core ideology, the combination of its values and purpose, and its envisioned future, a “Big Hairy Audacious Goal” accompanied with a vivid description. It concludes with a few examples that clearly articulate the elements of their framework and provide grounding for their claims.
3. In Managing Change: the Art of Balancing, Duck argues that change management efforts should not be dissected into small actionable pieces for fear of losing the forest to the trees. Instead, he asserts that they must be managed as a complex whole, like a mobile. As a means to accomplish this impressive undertaking, he recommends forming a dedicated transition management team that disbands after the change effort has stabilized.
4. In The Reinvention Rollercoaster: Risking the Future for a Powerful Future, Goss, Pascale, and Athos discuss the difference between improving and reinventing. They highlight a framework for managing and capitalizing on the pains of organizational reinvention. It focuses on five main steps: constructing a team with a critical mass and diversity of stakeholders, conducting an organizational audit to know where you are starting your change effort from, creating urgency, harnessing contention to derive constructive gains from differences, engineering breakdowns to reveal weaknesses.
5. In Changing the Mind of the Corporation, Martin focuses on a corporation’s path towards needing change and the issues that inevitably arise. It begins with the organization’s conception based largely on the founder’s vision. Then, steering mechanisms are engineered to maintain the founding vision and respond to economic forces. Over time, these steering mechanisms become outdated, the feedback within the organization is disrupted and a new vision is needed. At this point, defensive routines emerge that draw the new vision and the residual founding vision come into conflict. Martin argues that this conflict is inevitable and that it must be dealt with actively. He suggests actively structuring the debate as well as reverse engineering the new strategy from existing conditions or processes.
6. In Why do Employees Resist Change?, Strebel discusses the combative dynamic that can emerge between employers and employees during a change management effort. Furthermore, he prescribes a strategy for dealing with this conflict. He argues for a renegotiation of the personal compact between the employee and employer as a function of the greater change management strategy. This theory is examined through two case studies.
7. In Reshaping an Industry: Lockheed Martin’s Survival Story, Augustine examines the activities that took place at Lockheed Martin during a tumultuous period for the industry and how they were able to not just survive, but prosper.
8. In Successful Change Programs Begin with Results, Schaffer and Thomson describe a change management framework that is result driven. They argue that setting result expectations can be used to articulate and guide a change effort. In order to do so, the vision must be divided into attainable pieces and implemented over time.
Persisting Issues
Urgency – The first and fourth articles both discuss the concept of urgency, but in different capacities. Kotter argues for the creation of a sense of urgency so that it can act as a change agent and enlist support for a change effort. He believes that a sense of urgency with increase ones natural tendency to work together to move forward. On the other hand, Goss, Pascale, and Athos argue that urgency should be used as a tool for uncovering the main issues behind the need for change, for encouraging people to talk about the dark organizational secrets. In one case, urgency is enlisted for a constructive team building purpose. In another case, it is enlisted for deconstructing barriers to change.
Vision – The first, second, and fifth articles all discuss the role of vision in a change management effort. Kotter and Collins and Porras agree that vision is critical to a change management effort and provide its conceptual underpinning. But, Martin is quick to acknowledge that that competing visions can be as disruptive as they are useful. He takes a more responsible approach to the use of visions and suggests that they can be iterative and illuminating processes.
Team led change – The first, third and fourth articles all discuss the use of teams for leading change but all with a different focus. Kotter argues that the guiding coalition must have sufficient power with senior executives at its core. Also, Kotter argues that the team must be comprised of 20 to 50 individuals, a relatively large team. Duck argues that it must be comprised of dedicated fulltime members that disband after the change stabilizes. Duck stresses the importance of the team being only focused on the change effort. Goss, Pascale and Athos are more concerned with assembling a team with enough stakeholder diversity. Although all these authors agree that a team must be used to lead change, their views on how the team should be constructed and organized is very different.
As a whole or in pieces – The third and eighth articles highlighted two very distinct views of how change management should be implemented. Duck argues adamantly that the effort must be maintained as a whole. If not, Duck worries that an organization could get lost in the details and forget that they are only meaningful with respect to the greater whole. On the other hand, Schaffer and Thomson argue that a change management initiative should be broken into small components so that they can be articulated as attainable expectations. This is imperative to their result driven strategy. Falling at opposite ends of this issue’s spectrum, these articles highlight the diversity of ideas in this domain.
Dissent – The fourth, fifth and the sixth articles all try to tackle the issue of individuals as barriers to change. Strebel prescribed a method by which the employees and the employer reinvent their relationship as an active part of the change process. Goss, Pascale and Athos raise this issue as an element of the reinvention process and address it is two ways. First, they attempt to diffuse it with a diverse team leading the change. Second, they attempt to harness the contention as a process for gaining feedback and refining change. In this way, they strive to make positive gains from a typically negative situation. Martin focuses almost all effort on prescribing methods for resolving dissent such as structured debate and reverse engineering concepts. These methods are far less optimistic and focus mainly on putting fires out. On the other hand, Martin’s was the only one to deal with the issue in a way that was realistic and accepted that bad things happen, communications break down, and eventually you have to just role your sleeves up and work hard to resolve things.
Optimistic or realistic – The attitude of every article in the collection falls somewhere along the spectrum of optimism vs. realism. Not that any of them are solely one or the other, but some clearly lean more towards optimism and others clearly towards realism. For example, Kotter is often overly optimistic in his avoidance of issues such as victims of previous change and short term losses. He covers a lot of ground in his article, but he clearly refuses to discuss situations that are not perfect. On the other hand, Martin tends to get bogged down in the ugly reality of change management and spends an inordinate amount of time on worst case scenarios. This diversity in attitudes adds richness to the text as a whole. Sometimes, an optimistic approach can allow a writer to cover more territory and provide a wide spanning image of change management. Other times, it is useful to have someone really get into one issue and expose its realistic complexity.
Conclusion
The Harvard Business Review on Change does a responsible job of providing a diverse survey of change management literature and highlighting the complexity of the issues involved. All too often, authors allow themselves to over simplify change management issues for the benefit of elegance and to deal with pesky scope creep. Furthermore, for an area of research that is largely anecdotal, it is tempting for authors to pay attention only to supporting examples and avoid challenging evidence.
While at some points the Harvard Business Review on Change does fall victim to inelegance – the articles often contradict one another – the benefit of multiple diverse writings is well worth it. From the differing theories emerge timeless issues that are more important than any one theory. In the end, the reader is left with more questions than answers, the hallmark of any worthwhile read.
Book Review - The Essentials of Managing Change and Transition - M. Serkan Pektas
The Essentials of Managing Change and Transition (Business Literacy for HR Professionals).Authors: Lauren Keller Johnson, Richard LueckePublished: Boston, MA. Harvard Business School Publishing, 2005Pages: 265 pp. (ISBN: 1591395739) Price: $37.80
The Essentials of Managing Change and Transition is a part of “the Business Literacy for HR Professionals” series, which was developed and published by Harvard Business School and the Society for Human Resource Management. According to the publisher’s note, “this book provides a comprehensive overview of the concepts, skills, and tools HR professional need to be influential partners in developing and executing organizational strategy.”
This series was written under the guidance of Wendy Bliss, who has experience as a human resource executive, attorney, senior editor, and professional speaker. The subject adviser of this series is Michael Beer, the Cahners-Rabb Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Lauren Keller Johnson and Richard Luecke are the coauthors of this book. Both have authored several books and articles on a wide range of business subjects.
This book is influenced by the previous book of Richard Luecke, which is “Managing Change and Transition”, and it contains similar chapters. If you have read the previous book already, you can still find some important experiences, real life cases, and guidelines in this book.
The first chapter emphasizes factors of change and presents change as an opportunity rather than a threat for HR departments. In the business environment, where change is constant, the new role of HR is to help their companies to adapt and profit from changes. Those roles as change agent and change facilitator generate crucial value in an organization.
The second chapter reviews different types of change within organizations. The HR has a great influence on the entire change process, but structural and cultural changes are the most relevant practices. Also, the different types of timing for different change programs are defined. The advantages and disadvantages of anticipatory, reactive, and crisis changes are discussed. This chapter also describes two approaches to change, one of which is the organizational capabilities approach. Although both approaches are the essential parts of the change, the authors suggest that one should be chosen at the expense of the other (Which is most appropriate-Theory E or Theory O? pg. 27), I think that they can be applied at the same time. In economical approach, Theory E, is sometimes about includes employee layoff, so there should be organizational restructuring or at least new arrangements are required within departments.
In the third chapter, the authors define three major conditions that are necessary for an organization’s change readiness: respected and effective leaders, appropriate reward systems, and nonhierarchical organization. I agree that those conditions are necessary for change programs. Under those conditions, the success of the change programs is higher. However, it means that if the organization is functionally aligned and traditionally hierarchical, then the organization is not change-ready. In addition, the authors discuss how HR professionals can cultivate those conditions in their companies. In my opinion, changing hierarchical structure into nonhierarchical structure is a great change management issue. This indicates that if nonhierarchical structure is necessary for an organization to change, then hierarchical organization will never change. The authors also talk about the importance of respected and effective leadership in nonhierarchical organizations. In nonhierarchical organizations, everybody can be a change agent. In my opinion, respected and effective leadership is needed when an organization is hierarchical. Reward system benefits are also important but financial rewards systems sometimes bring new problems rather than solutions.
In the fourth chapter, the authors emphasize the importance of the human side of transition. The best conditions and regulations can be created in order to encourage an organization to change, but it is not enough to initiate transition in an organization. For example, some employees could lose their expertise after implementation of change program or they need to learn new skills to compete without gaining any return. This situation may cause that most employees fell frustrated and the authors suggests some methods for them to deal with the upheavals of change.
The fifth chapter is the brief description of The Heart of Change by John P. Kotter and Dan S. Cohen. The authors represent these eight steps to change as a guideline and they discuss effective and non-effective actions to take during the change efforts. Those steps are:
Step 1: Establish a sense of urgencyStep 2: Create a guiding coalitionStep 3: Develop a compelling visionStep 4: Communicate the visionStep 5: Empower others to act on the visionStep 6: Generate short term winsStep 7: Consolidate gains and produce more changeStep 8: Anchor new approaches in the company culture
In the sixth chapter, the authors identify seven activities that are essential for implementation. All of them are about communication channels between system agents and change agents. They believe that the communication, such as enlisting support and celebrating short term wins, would catalyze the transition. They also discuss involvement and roles of consultants and employees in different steps of implementation.
In the seventh and eighth chapters, they address different types of employee responses to change and how to handle those responses. The authors also mention about change agents and system agents like in The Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity Science (by Edwin E. Olson and Glenda H. Eoyang). In this chapter, in addition to these two agents, the authors point out another type of employee, classified as resistors who do not want to change. According to the authors, the resistors are also active participants of the change process like change agents. The acknowledgement of those employees before implementation would allow change managers to plan comprehensively.
The remaining chapters are about how to adapt continuous change culture into an organization and the role of HR professionals on this adaption process.
This book is designed to give implementation ideas for Hr professionals. The authors’ main concern is to give general knowledge and a practical view. That is why in this book, the critical approach to issues is rarely discussed.
At the conclusion of each of the eleven chapters, the authors give an especially useful “Summing Up” section which makes possible a review of important points. After that part, each topic has been leveraged by critically questioning them at the end of each chapter.
I also like the “Tools” section makes it easy for a reader to think him/herself by putting into situations and encouraging critical thinking about topics that are covered in the chapter. Beside those, there are also special parts in each chapter, such as “HR Action”, “Tips”, “Dos and Don’ts”, and special notes. In those specially formatted parts, the readers can find many useful points and practices to apply real life cases.
Therefore I think that the flow of chapters is very well structured and specially formatted summary and tools sections at the end of each chapter stress the main points of the chapter so the readers can focus on them.
However, there are two things that should be improved for better readability. First of all, I have some difficulty in following chapters in terms of special parts, because those special parts recurring in each chapter have different places. For example, after the first chapters, I would expect that “Tools” parts are last part of each chapter, but sometimes they are placed different parts of the chapter rather than the last part. If they have a common places in each chapter layout, it looks more professional. Secondly, the authors’ points in “HR Action”-“special notes” and “Tips”-“Dos and Don’ts” seems to have similar concept. Instead of labeling and formatting them differently, it is better to keep that information under “HR Action” and “Tips”.
It can be said that, this book is a guidelines book. This book gives a good hints to manage transition. If you are interested in the book that discusses the change management issues in more criticizing way, this is not the book that you are looking for. Since the aim of the book is to give some background information about change management to HR professionals, the authors have accomplished it by discussing all aspects of change management from HR perspective. If you have plans to build career in HR, or you are already in HR, and looking for guidelines to back up your vision for managing change in workplace, I strongly recommend you to read this book. This book should be under your hand, because you as a HR professional are going to deal with the change management issues at all level and almost everyday.
The Essentials of Managing Change and Transition is a part of “the Business Literacy for HR Professionals” series, which was developed and published by Harvard Business School and the Society for Human Resource Management. According to the publisher’s note, “this book provides a comprehensive overview of the concepts, skills, and tools HR professional need to be influential partners in developing and executing organizational strategy.”
This series was written under the guidance of Wendy Bliss, who has experience as a human resource executive, attorney, senior editor, and professional speaker. The subject adviser of this series is Michael Beer, the Cahners-Rabb Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Lauren Keller Johnson and Richard Luecke are the coauthors of this book. Both have authored several books and articles on a wide range of business subjects.
This book is influenced by the previous book of Richard Luecke, which is “Managing Change and Transition”, and it contains similar chapters. If you have read the previous book already, you can still find some important experiences, real life cases, and guidelines in this book.
The first chapter emphasizes factors of change and presents change as an opportunity rather than a threat for HR departments. In the business environment, where change is constant, the new role of HR is to help their companies to adapt and profit from changes. Those roles as change agent and change facilitator generate crucial value in an organization.
The second chapter reviews different types of change within organizations. The HR has a great influence on the entire change process, but structural and cultural changes are the most relevant practices. Also, the different types of timing for different change programs are defined. The advantages and disadvantages of anticipatory, reactive, and crisis changes are discussed. This chapter also describes two approaches to change, one of which is the organizational capabilities approach. Although both approaches are the essential parts of the change, the authors suggest that one should be chosen at the expense of the other (Which is most appropriate-Theory E or Theory O? pg. 27), I think that they can be applied at the same time. In economical approach, Theory E, is sometimes about includes employee layoff, so there should be organizational restructuring or at least new arrangements are required within departments.
In the third chapter, the authors define three major conditions that are necessary for an organization’s change readiness: respected and effective leaders, appropriate reward systems, and nonhierarchical organization. I agree that those conditions are necessary for change programs. Under those conditions, the success of the change programs is higher. However, it means that if the organization is functionally aligned and traditionally hierarchical, then the organization is not change-ready. In addition, the authors discuss how HR professionals can cultivate those conditions in their companies. In my opinion, changing hierarchical structure into nonhierarchical structure is a great change management issue. This indicates that if nonhierarchical structure is necessary for an organization to change, then hierarchical organization will never change. The authors also talk about the importance of respected and effective leadership in nonhierarchical organizations. In nonhierarchical organizations, everybody can be a change agent. In my opinion, respected and effective leadership is needed when an organization is hierarchical. Reward system benefits are also important but financial rewards systems sometimes bring new problems rather than solutions.
In the fourth chapter, the authors emphasize the importance of the human side of transition. The best conditions and regulations can be created in order to encourage an organization to change, but it is not enough to initiate transition in an organization. For example, some employees could lose their expertise after implementation of change program or they need to learn new skills to compete without gaining any return. This situation may cause that most employees fell frustrated and the authors suggests some methods for them to deal with the upheavals of change.
The fifth chapter is the brief description of The Heart of Change by John P. Kotter and Dan S. Cohen. The authors represent these eight steps to change as a guideline and they discuss effective and non-effective actions to take during the change efforts. Those steps are:
Step 1: Establish a sense of urgencyStep 2: Create a guiding coalitionStep 3: Develop a compelling visionStep 4: Communicate the visionStep 5: Empower others to act on the visionStep 6: Generate short term winsStep 7: Consolidate gains and produce more changeStep 8: Anchor new approaches in the company culture
In the sixth chapter, the authors identify seven activities that are essential for implementation. All of them are about communication channels between system agents and change agents. They believe that the communication, such as enlisting support and celebrating short term wins, would catalyze the transition. They also discuss involvement and roles of consultants and employees in different steps of implementation.
In the seventh and eighth chapters, they address different types of employee responses to change and how to handle those responses. The authors also mention about change agents and system agents like in The Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity Science (by Edwin E. Olson and Glenda H. Eoyang). In this chapter, in addition to these two agents, the authors point out another type of employee, classified as resistors who do not want to change. According to the authors, the resistors are also active participants of the change process like change agents. The acknowledgement of those employees before implementation would allow change managers to plan comprehensively.
The remaining chapters are about how to adapt continuous change culture into an organization and the role of HR professionals on this adaption process.
This book is designed to give implementation ideas for Hr professionals. The authors’ main concern is to give general knowledge and a practical view. That is why in this book, the critical approach to issues is rarely discussed.
At the conclusion of each of the eleven chapters, the authors give an especially useful “Summing Up” section which makes possible a review of important points. After that part, each topic has been leveraged by critically questioning them at the end of each chapter.
I also like the “Tools” section makes it easy for a reader to think him/herself by putting into situations and encouraging critical thinking about topics that are covered in the chapter. Beside those, there are also special parts in each chapter, such as “HR Action”, “Tips”, “Dos and Don’ts”, and special notes. In those specially formatted parts, the readers can find many useful points and practices to apply real life cases.
Therefore I think that the flow of chapters is very well structured and specially formatted summary and tools sections at the end of each chapter stress the main points of the chapter so the readers can focus on them.
However, there are two things that should be improved for better readability. First of all, I have some difficulty in following chapters in terms of special parts, because those special parts recurring in each chapter have different places. For example, after the first chapters, I would expect that “Tools” parts are last part of each chapter, but sometimes they are placed different parts of the chapter rather than the last part. If they have a common places in each chapter layout, it looks more professional. Secondly, the authors’ points in “HR Action”-“special notes” and “Tips”-“Dos and Don’ts” seems to have similar concept. Instead of labeling and formatting them differently, it is better to keep that information under “HR Action” and “Tips”.
It can be said that, this book is a guidelines book. This book gives a good hints to manage transition. If you are interested in the book that discusses the change management issues in more criticizing way, this is not the book that you are looking for. Since the aim of the book is to give some background information about change management to HR professionals, the authors have accomplished it by discussing all aspects of change management from HR perspective. If you have plans to build career in HR, or you are already in HR, and looking for guidelines to back up your vision for managing change in workplace, I strongly recommend you to read this book. This book should be under your hand, because you as a HR professional are going to deal with the change management issues at all level and almost everyday.
Book Review - Tipping Organizational Change - Rebecca M Allen
Tipping Organizational Change
Introduction
It’s not often that a book will keep me captivated throughout the night, red-eyed and exhausted, yet
Introduction
It’s not often that a book will keep me captivated throughout the night, red-eyed and exhausted, yet