After watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM&feature=youtu.be, write a well-written reflection blog, discuss how your characteristics would have fit with the makeup and culture of the NeXT startup team. Your reflection should be very specific to the environment that you witness in the video. Make sure that you use your MA results as the basis for your discussion.
Damien Lloyd Payne in NeXT - not a chance! OK, bold statement, but I have the evidence to back this up. Not only overall am I at completely the other end of the spectrum - everything that annoys me would be contained in this startup. I'm going to be referring in this blog to a management assessment (MA that was done for me) the results of which I have posted below this blog for reference.
Lets start with the business environment that I am most suited too. For me it is at the complete other end of the spectrum than start-up companies. I much prefer to be in a large, rapid growth company. While I am pretty self confident and also self assertive, I do not exhibit the traits that signify Independence - in fact I look for structure much more than is required at a startup.
The second biggest know of the MA report is contained in the innovation characteristics. I am absolutely not driven to invent any new product at all - in fact nothing could turn me off more in a company. I may well be excited about selling such a new product or promoting it, but there is no way I would want to try to invent the next computer like the NeXt team is trying to do. Although I am highly motivated to be creative and to solve problems - these are not problems of invention that interest me, but perhaps the post-production problems that may arise after. My sales and marketing background would help me there, and is what has shaped this aversion to the new invention process.
There is a third reason that NeXt would not be a good fit for me, and that revolves around risk. Startups are by their very nature risky. With hindsight, you can see how NeXT did not become the huge computing giant that many of those present in the video hoped it would be. In fact, contrary to this belief, NeXT began to focus on the software capabilities rather than the hardware side the initial focus for success was on. For me, my MA shows that I am certainly willing to take risks in business decisions and have a history of doing so - but I have a very low tolerance for personal risk. Steve Jobs in the video took personal risk by sinking his own money into the company - I am sure other there may have done the same - perhaps by taking little pay or by working longer hours than one would in a normal job. Being a pilot, I'm risk adverse on the personal side. In fact, the nature of my job means that I have to do everything I can to minimize risk to those people on board - and there is nobody on my helicopter more important than me (even though the passengers think I cancel flights for their safety!). Because of the risk of the startup failure, and being out of work - a startup could not be for me.
So that pretty sums up why me and NeXt would not be that good for each other. But there are some positives that a company like NeXt could get from me. The MA states: "Candidate’s Role Model Characteristic shows that they strongly desire to act, or be seen, as a role model and it may lead to decisions that fulfill this need." Role models are important in a startup - and this may explain some of the success that good leaders have with this type of company - their desire to be a role model for those working for and with them. Steve Jobs was probably just this sort of person - someone that others wanted to follow and to emulate. In addition "Candidate's Data & Perfection Characteristic reflects a tendency to prefer gathering significant quantities of data, and driving for perfection" is another characteristic that Steve Jobs may wish to employ. A perfectionist himself, some people point to the NeXT failure in part due to the building of the computer around a perfectionist vision, rather than what was feasible in a $3500 selling range.
Lastly, "Candidate's Business Financial Metric Usage Characteristic suggests that they may not regularly use financial metrics as validation of the venture’s success. Inconsistent or infrequent usage of such measures may adversely affect the organization." This may well be a characteristic of Steve Jobs himself, who spent we are told in the video, over $100,000 on just a logo. as well as bleeding money through a thousand departmental overspends. Not sure if this trait is a helpful one, but may be something that Steve may recognise in himself and relate to.
For now, I'm satisfied at having missed out on the NeXT startup - and all other startups in the future - as the say in England "It's just not my cup of tea".
December 19, 2013
December 10, 2013
A631.8.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Develop a reflection blog describing how the MBTI might be useful to you as you develop your leadership capacity. In your blog, touch on your own self-awareness and also your knowledge and awareness of others.
So my personality type is a INTJ, which for those of you not in the know stands for Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking and Judging. At first glance, the word Introvert did not sit right. In social situations, you wouldn't describe me as being introverted at all. In fact quite the opposite. More in depth exploration of this Myers-Brigg personality Type was needed. What I found most fascinating, was that overall they had me pretty much pegged. I know what I know, and more importantly, I know what I don't know. I am the type of person that likes to get things done, and sometimes I pretend to follow the way things have always been done, but do things differently to get the right results. The MTBI test certainly has me placed as management material - sort of gratifying there at least.
Some further research indicated that perhaps the most fundamental problem with INTJ's is that INTJs really want people to make sense. (which I do!) This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete', only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonablness and directness. I personally can't stand it when I'm told something that doesn't make any sense, and hate it when people just can't be direct.
From a leadership stand point, I believe that the MBTI allow us to see where we stand or at least get a better idea of some of our personality traits. In one of the videos that I had an opportunity to watch for our team assignment this week, it focused on realizing traits that we don't normally recognize. That video got me thinking about things that I might do without consciously thinking about doing them. MBTI is a great tool for this purpose. I think it is very important to understand and become self-aware of certain traits, assumptions, etc. that each of us have. As a leader, it's important to help other to realize and become self-aware too. MBTI helps us to realize traits about ourselves that we may not typically know or understand about ourselves. Therefore, knowing this will benefit me in my future leading endeavors. When you are sharing the same perspective to help someone to become a more effective leader you’ve got to come from an element of care and authenticity, so that what you are trying to do is in the best interests of helping them increase their own leadership effectiveness.
I find the MBTI test to be an interesting activity and one that enables a healthy self-reflection exercise to take place. I have been working more on the idea of being a "balanced" leader and to practice areas where I am more in a "distinct preference" mode in order to become more "moderate"....and this has the advantage of becoming a more amiable personality, to relate better to a wider spectrum of other's personalities, and to maintain the ability to reach for and utilize the mindset behind "distinct" preferences if they serve a present need. The cornerstone concept for leadership studies are effective leadership attributes and leadership skills - both of which can be learned. So naturally, we need to learn them, practice them, and own them.
Practice is the "growth" mode of development for an aspiring leader. Only through mindful practice can new behaviors be reinforced, new thought circuitry be developed and stabilized, and new interpersonal skills be explored and polished. Creating and developing a plan of action, however, requires some form of metric/measurement in order to be successful. The MBTI seems to fit this bill. Using these ideas and taking pains to observe and draw upon reliable and insightful feedback is perhaps a leadership behavior that needs to be installed and practiced at an early stage....listening, noting, and plugging in feedback into the "leadership learning process" is of vital importance. Although they say that great leaders are born, I'm not sure that they didn't learn a thing or two first and along the way too.
So my personality type is a INTJ, which for those of you not in the know stands for Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking and Judging. At first glance, the word Introvert did not sit right. In social situations, you wouldn't describe me as being introverted at all. In fact quite the opposite. More in depth exploration of this Myers-Brigg personality Type was needed. What I found most fascinating, was that overall they had me pretty much pegged. I know what I know, and more importantly, I know what I don't know. I am the type of person that likes to get things done, and sometimes I pretend to follow the way things have always been done, but do things differently to get the right results. The MTBI test certainly has me placed as management material - sort of gratifying there at least.
Some further research indicated that perhaps the most fundamental problem with INTJ's is that INTJs really want people to make sense. (which I do!) This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete', only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonablness and directness. I personally can't stand it when I'm told something that doesn't make any sense, and hate it when people just can't be direct.
From a leadership stand point, I believe that the MBTI allow us to see where we stand or at least get a better idea of some of our personality traits. In one of the videos that I had an opportunity to watch for our team assignment this week, it focused on realizing traits that we don't normally recognize. That video got me thinking about things that I might do without consciously thinking about doing them. MBTI is a great tool for this purpose. I think it is very important to understand and become self-aware of certain traits, assumptions, etc. that each of us have. As a leader, it's important to help other to realize and become self-aware too. MBTI helps us to realize traits about ourselves that we may not typically know or understand about ourselves. Therefore, knowing this will benefit me in my future leading endeavors. When you are sharing the same perspective to help someone to become a more effective leader you’ve got to come from an element of care and authenticity, so that what you are trying to do is in the best interests of helping them increase their own leadership effectiveness.
I find the MBTI test to be an interesting activity and one that enables a healthy self-reflection exercise to take place. I have been working more on the idea of being a "balanced" leader and to practice areas where I am more in a "distinct preference" mode in order to become more "moderate"....and this has the advantage of becoming a more amiable personality, to relate better to a wider spectrum of other's personalities, and to maintain the ability to reach for and utilize the mindset behind "distinct" preferences if they serve a present need. The cornerstone concept for leadership studies are effective leadership attributes and leadership skills - both of which can be learned. So naturally, we need to learn them, practice them, and own them.
Practice is the "growth" mode of development for an aspiring leader. Only through mindful practice can new behaviors be reinforced, new thought circuitry be developed and stabilized, and new interpersonal skills be explored and polished. Creating and developing a plan of action, however, requires some form of metric/measurement in order to be successful. The MBTI seems to fit this bill. Using these ideas and taking pains to observe and draw upon reliable and insightful feedback is perhaps a leadership behavior that needs to be installed and practiced at an early stage....listening, noting, and plugging in feedback into the "leadership learning process" is of vital importance. Although they say that great leaders are born, I'm not sure that they didn't learn a thing or two first and along the way too.
December 5, 2013
A631.7.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Together, MSLD 630 and MSLD 631 provide an overview of Organizational Development (OD). The courses present an OD view of managing change and organizational transformation. In this final chapter of your textbook, Brown presents two opposing ideas: OD is viewed by some as a rapidly changing field keeping up with the times and by others as a fad that will become irrelevant. Given what you have learned over the past two courses, what do you see as the future of the OD discipline?
When my Grandfather was young, the idea that a man could stand on the moon was just a dream, and actually, not really thought of as possible. Today, my children have no idea how to use the rotary phone I grew up with, and we have more computing power in our house than the entire Apollo space missions put together. When people ask what the future will be - weather that future is about a race to the moon or the future of an OD discipline it is always very hard to predict.
First we can answer the question as to weather OD will have any relevancy in the future - and the answer I believe is yes it will. I believe the form it takes may change - it may even be barely recognisable as the OD we have learnt about in these two courses, nevertheless, it will still be OD. I say this quite confidently because there is always going to be a need for not only change, but also reinvention. So OD will change with that in one form or another, trying hard to keep up.
I think more important, is the question of what OD will change into. To answer this question is pretty impossible, yet some educated guesses may be able to shed some light on the future. I believe that the future of organizations themselves are doomed. Not that we won't have an organization per say - just not one in the traditional sense that we think of one. We are forever moving towards flatter organizations to survive - corporations look to reduce overhead where possible by downsizing corporate headquarters, allowing more work from home (unless you are Yahoo), embracing communication technology and "Go To Meeting" applications that provide video conferencing.and the future of manufacturing for the masses starts to dim as 3D printing becomes ever quicker towards the home market. Each of us now cherish our smart phones where less than 5 years ago a razor flip phone was the latest and greatest. Smart phones now allow complete connectivity with desktops, work, home and through social media - the world.
I foresee a future where people manufacture their own products, merely buying designs straight from the web. I believe the world of delivery will change as technology increases which will eventually lay waste to the now traditional online mega stores like Amazon. High street stores will be gone because same day delivery will be standard fare for online consumers. I believe that we will all be working from home or a space in our own town, no matter how rural and this will all require a much different form of OD for companies.
I am pretty sure that companies will have to make a sea change very quickly, much more quickly than they would like. Competition from individuals will be the next biggest hurdle for large organizations to overcome, as the world of technology makes it as easy for me to earn a living on my own as it is right now to be employed.
So in a sense, OD as we know it today may well look like a fad that fades away in the same way that the craze for open floor office planning and management by walk-around so popular in the 1980's. I don't think OD is as clear cut as when Charlie Chaplin said “Movies are a fad. Audiences really
want to see live actors on a stage” or when the President of the Michigan Savings Bank stated “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad.” OD will still exist, the content may change some. In fact, it may be unrecognizable and it may be called something different. But the very definition of OD is a deliberately planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's effectiveness and/or efficiency. What I think is the future means that organizations will effectively have plan themselves into extinction to become the most effective and efficient organization.
What investors, customers, suppliers and employees want from organizations is clarity around what they see as the future markets and competition. They want to know how the company is going to be successful in 2 or 5 years. In today’s rapidly shifting, global markets it is not enough to talk about historical results, and to exhibit confidence that what brought the company to this point will propel it forward successfully (see Microsoft). And everyone recognizes that managing quarter to quarter will not create long term success.
Organizations and their leaders must demonstrate a keen eye for market shifts, and invest in opportunities to participate in game changers. Leaders must recognize trends, be clear about how those trends are shaping future markets and competitors, and align the organization with those trends. Leadership is not about what the company did before, but is entirely about what their organization is going to do next. And that to some companies is too scary a thought to process, as they struggle with working out what is going on today - which is why the enlightenment from OD may prove a least a little helpful in the future. Considering the past pace of advances, even guessing at the future of OD may prove to be futile.
When my Grandfather was young, the idea that a man could stand on the moon was just a dream, and actually, not really thought of as possible. Today, my children have no idea how to use the rotary phone I grew up with, and we have more computing power in our house than the entire Apollo space missions put together. When people ask what the future will be - weather that future is about a race to the moon or the future of an OD discipline it is always very hard to predict.
First we can answer the question as to weather OD will have any relevancy in the future - and the answer I believe is yes it will. I believe the form it takes may change - it may even be barely recognisable as the OD we have learnt about in these two courses, nevertheless, it will still be OD. I say this quite confidently because there is always going to be a need for not only change, but also reinvention. So OD will change with that in one form or another, trying hard to keep up.
I think more important, is the question of what OD will change into. To answer this question is pretty impossible, yet some educated guesses may be able to shed some light on the future. I believe that the future of organizations themselves are doomed. Not that we won't have an organization per say - just not one in the traditional sense that we think of one. We are forever moving towards flatter organizations to survive - corporations look to reduce overhead where possible by downsizing corporate headquarters, allowing more work from home (unless you are Yahoo), embracing communication technology and "Go To Meeting" applications that provide video conferencing.and the future of manufacturing for the masses starts to dim as 3D printing becomes ever quicker towards the home market. Each of us now cherish our smart phones where less than 5 years ago a razor flip phone was the latest and greatest. Smart phones now allow complete connectivity with desktops, work, home and through social media - the world.
I foresee a future where people manufacture their own products, merely buying designs straight from the web. I believe the world of delivery will change as technology increases which will eventually lay waste to the now traditional online mega stores like Amazon. High street stores will be gone because same day delivery will be standard fare for online consumers. I believe that we will all be working from home or a space in our own town, no matter how rural and this will all require a much different form of OD for companies.
I am pretty sure that companies will have to make a sea change very quickly, much more quickly than they would like. Competition from individuals will be the next biggest hurdle for large organizations to overcome, as the world of technology makes it as easy for me to earn a living on my own as it is right now to be employed.
So in a sense, OD as we know it today may well look like a fad that fades away in the same way that the craze for open floor office planning and management by walk-around so popular in the 1980's. I don't think OD is as clear cut as when Charlie Chaplin said “Movies are a fad. Audiences really
want to see live actors on a stage” or when the President of the Michigan Savings Bank stated “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad.” OD will still exist, the content may change some. In fact, it may be unrecognizable and it may be called something different. But the very definition of OD is a deliberately planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's effectiveness and/or efficiency. What I think is the future means that organizations will effectively have plan themselves into extinction to become the most effective and efficient organization.
What investors, customers, suppliers and employees want from organizations is clarity around what they see as the future markets and competition. They want to know how the company is going to be successful in 2 or 5 years. In today’s rapidly shifting, global markets it is not enough to talk about historical results, and to exhibit confidence that what brought the company to this point will propel it forward successfully (see Microsoft). And everyone recognizes that managing quarter to quarter will not create long term success.
Organizations and their leaders must demonstrate a keen eye for market shifts, and invest in opportunities to participate in game changers. Leaders must recognize trends, be clear about how those trends are shaping future markets and competitors, and align the organization with those trends. Leadership is not about what the company did before, but is entirely about what their organization is going to do next. And that to some companies is too scary a thought to process, as they struggle with working out what is going on today - which is why the enlightenment from OD may prove a least a little helpful in the future. Considering the past pace of advances, even guessing at the future of OD may prove to be futile.
December 1, 2013
A631.6.4.RB_LloydPayneDamienh
Watch these videos:
http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal.html
http://www.vitalsmarts.com/casestudies/gallery-furniture/
Both of these videos highlight leadership in times of transformational change. How do you relate and make sense of the approaches taken by Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale and Stanley McChrystal compared to the information presented in your textbook? Use Figure 15.4 Relative Strength of Corporate Cultures and Figure 15.5 The Strategy-Culture Matrix in your response.
Have you ever bought furniture in another country - or better still a car? When I first came to America - with a pretty good background in Sales, I was appalled the first time I walked into a car showroom. I went there truly believing that the stereotypical salesman was dead, and yet I found him; he resides in car showrooms and furniture galleries across America.
Buying a car isn't a pleasure, nor is it simple. It's painful, dreadful and certainly made harder than it should be. How is it I can go into my nearest store and without any hassle, choose between brands at advertised prices right there on the shelf, and then buy those goods without any negotiation, or hassle. But when I go to do the same with a car I cannot?
First, the sofa or the car invariably will cost me as much as I can afford. Apparently the car costs more if my credit score is low, and less if it is high. Sometimes I'll hear phrases like "let's find the sofa you like and then we talk about what we can do to get that into your house" or "let me talk to my manager and see if we can make a deal."
It's all very strange, because in the UK, every car has a price on the windscreen. You can negotiate a little for fun if you like and maybe get a $1000 off to make you feel like you've got a deal, but essentially buying a car in the UK is much like buying candy at the local Target. What this means is that the "salesman" is now free to be a relationship builder; someone you like without pressuring you into buying something; someone you would recommend to a friend even if you didn't buy a car or a sofa from him yourself. And you are free to choose a car that is best for you, not one the car salesman needs off his lot. Is it any wonder that American cars were built for such a long period of time not keeping up with what customers wanted and led them to go bankrupt?
It seemed to me that sales in the US is far, far behind the rest of the world. (And don't get me started on banking). The greasy, slick and "I'm not able to make a deal without a managers approval" is live and kicking at literally every car showroom across the US - and it's like a disease. A disease that can't be cured until many of them die off and a cure is found amoung those that survive.
What gallery furniture discovered after 36 years of prosperity and little competition is that they didn't have relationships with customers - they had sales brought about by pressure or price - neither of which survive in a downturn. As a old bar owner once taught me at college - anyone can sell cheap beer, it's not the cheap beer that people keep coming back for, and those that do, are not the ones that you want anyway. What Gallery Furniture didn't have was a commitment to values - because there were none. This was evident in the fact that Jim McIngvale stated that they finally found an incentive system his own staff were unable to "game". Because there were no values, staff were not committed to them and this indicated a very weak culture.
As culture is what keeps a company breathing, it was no surprise that this company turned itself around into selling furniture in a new way. Gallery Furniture started building relationships. They started valuing their employees by training them and they started recognising them when they upheld a value - and it showed in their bottom line. I would be fascinated to go to a store of theirs and experience the new salesman there. I suspect it's nothing like the ones I find at my Ford Dealership.
What the General McChrystal ramblings talk towards is the strategy-culture mix. After 9-11 there was a real need to change the strategy in the way the free world fight wars, and to boot they had a new generation of fighters with no real connection to those who new the reasons for being there. Their commanders had witnessed the 9-11 aftermath, while those on the front line had "been in 6th grade". The leaders had less knowledge of new communication technologies, yet the participants were well used to video conferencing and receiving orders remotely. In order for General McChrystal to be effective as a leader he had to consider this new culture and understand the relationship between it and the new strategy he needed to adopt to win. The modern army fighting in Afghanistan was firmly in quadrant 1 of figure 15.5. Here, the leaders had to implement the strategy which was vital for success in the war, but reinforced that change through accepting the culture of the new modern army. When the general describes the Ranger Mantra that they recite every day, that is him accepting they have a culture, and he lead his teams bearing those facts in mind. He encouraged (as he had learnt from his old battalion commander who said he had done well after he had failed miserably on an exercise) his men and reinforced the values that they all upheld at 9-11. It was a difficult task, but one that allowed him to pursue the major changes.
I wonder what would have happened if the General had taken the same line with the troops as a car salesman does with me when I visit his showroom? I have to tell you, I would do anything today to avoid buying a car from a car salesman.
http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal.html
http://www.vitalsmarts.com/casestudies/gallery-furniture/
Both of these videos highlight leadership in times of transformational change. How do you relate and make sense of the approaches taken by Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale and Stanley McChrystal compared to the information presented in your textbook? Use Figure 15.4 Relative Strength of Corporate Cultures and Figure 15.5 The Strategy-Culture Matrix in your response.
Have you ever bought furniture in another country - or better still a car? When I first came to America - with a pretty good background in Sales, I was appalled the first time I walked into a car showroom. I went there truly believing that the stereotypical salesman was dead, and yet I found him; he resides in car showrooms and furniture galleries across America.
Buying a car isn't a pleasure, nor is it simple. It's painful, dreadful and certainly made harder than it should be. How is it I can go into my nearest store and without any hassle, choose between brands at advertised prices right there on the shelf, and then buy those goods without any negotiation, or hassle. But when I go to do the same with a car I cannot?
First, the sofa or the car invariably will cost me as much as I can afford. Apparently the car costs more if my credit score is low, and less if it is high. Sometimes I'll hear phrases like "let's find the sofa you like and then we talk about what we can do to get that into your house" or "let me talk to my manager and see if we can make a deal."
It's all very strange, because in the UK, every car has a price on the windscreen. You can negotiate a little for fun if you like and maybe get a $1000 off to make you feel like you've got a deal, but essentially buying a car in the UK is much like buying candy at the local Target. What this means is that the "salesman" is now free to be a relationship builder; someone you like without pressuring you into buying something; someone you would recommend to a friend even if you didn't buy a car or a sofa from him yourself. And you are free to choose a car that is best for you, not one the car salesman needs off his lot. Is it any wonder that American cars were built for such a long period of time not keeping up with what customers wanted and led them to go bankrupt?
It seemed to me that sales in the US is far, far behind the rest of the world. (And don't get me started on banking). The greasy, slick and "I'm not able to make a deal without a managers approval" is live and kicking at literally every car showroom across the US - and it's like a disease. A disease that can't be cured until many of them die off and a cure is found amoung those that survive.
What gallery furniture discovered after 36 years of prosperity and little competition is that they didn't have relationships with customers - they had sales brought about by pressure or price - neither of which survive in a downturn. As a old bar owner once taught me at college - anyone can sell cheap beer, it's not the cheap beer that people keep coming back for, and those that do, are not the ones that you want anyway. What Gallery Furniture didn't have was a commitment to values - because there were none. This was evident in the fact that Jim McIngvale stated that they finally found an incentive system his own staff were unable to "game". Because there were no values, staff were not committed to them and this indicated a very weak culture.
As culture is what keeps a company breathing, it was no surprise that this company turned itself around into selling furniture in a new way. Gallery Furniture started building relationships. They started valuing their employees by training them and they started recognising them when they upheld a value - and it showed in their bottom line. I would be fascinated to go to a store of theirs and experience the new salesman there. I suspect it's nothing like the ones I find at my Ford Dealership.
What the General McChrystal ramblings talk towards is the strategy-culture mix. After 9-11 there was a real need to change the strategy in the way the free world fight wars, and to boot they had a new generation of fighters with no real connection to those who new the reasons for being there. Their commanders had witnessed the 9-11 aftermath, while those on the front line had "been in 6th grade". The leaders had less knowledge of new communication technologies, yet the participants were well used to video conferencing and receiving orders remotely. In order for General McChrystal to be effective as a leader he had to consider this new culture and understand the relationship between it and the new strategy he needed to adopt to win. The modern army fighting in Afghanistan was firmly in quadrant 1 of figure 15.5. Here, the leaders had to implement the strategy which was vital for success in the war, but reinforced that change through accepting the culture of the new modern army. When the general describes the Ranger Mantra that they recite every day, that is him accepting they have a culture, and he lead his teams bearing those facts in mind. He encouraged (as he had learnt from his old battalion commander who said he had done well after he had failed miserably on an exercise) his men and reinforced the values that they all upheld at 9-11. It was a difficult task, but one that allowed him to pursue the major changes.
I wonder what would have happened if the General had taken the same line with the troops as a car salesman does with me when I visit his showroom? I have to tell you, I would do anything today to avoid buying a car from a car salesman.
November 23, 2013
A631.5.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
In your reflection blog, consider how difficult it must be for a leader to grow into a person who can lead a system-wide change effectively. Perhaps you remember leaders who attempted system wide interventions but failed because they were not capable of pulling it all together. On the other hand, you may know leaders who were able to do what you thought would be impossible. From your point of view now, what is required for a leader to be successful?
Being a leader requires the ability to get others to follow you and to buy into your way of thinking, however, not all leaders are radically different in their thought process. Only the truly great leaders of change are radical in their thought process and will stand up to the norms of the day.
Leadership is a tenuous exercise for most great personalities; they have to be conventional and irrational at the same time. Being different enough to invoke radical change yet not too far out where they are disconnected from their target audience. Certainly, there is a culmination of society’s readiness for change, a desire for leadership to lead that change and a personality capable of being that individualistic thinker, willing to lay down their own personal agenda and becoming the “servant leader” their followers need. The balance seems to be a fine one and the “crazy ones” all possessed the ability to inspire others to action; question conventional wisdom and ultimately stand in the face of adversity for their beliefs until change happened.
I believe that it is such a fine line, that many leaders fall from it, and are unsuccessful at leading transformational change. A connection is what I believe is needed with those that are being led. It could be a connection as in a policy or issue (see Barack Obama's first Change campaign for President) or it can be a connection through the people themselves (I am one of you, and can relate to your issues while I lead you). There are other leaders in history who are written off as being good at leadership because of the wrong route their leadership took them. Winston Churchill is always held up as a great leader - taking the British people through World War Two, never quitting, always fighting on. Adolf Hitler is correctly the antihero - yet prior to the start of World War Two he was seen as many, including the allies as a great leader. Although his policies turned out to be utterly flawed, his use of propaganda, jumping on a cause, being a man of the people and his oratory expertise, actually led an entire nation towards prosperity, economic might, political power and ultimately the strongest military force in the world. It would be hard to argue that Hitler did not capture the greater majority of the peoples of Germany in a leadership coup. I believe what I am saying about leadership is that we tend to think of it in the positive, yet there are leaders and have been leaders that have led their people, country or followers to disaster. To name a few - Hitler, Napolean, Jim Jones. Perhaps, what separates the great leaders of system wide interventions are qualities like emotional intelligence, empathy and integrity - and not just the traits found in most leaders - Judgement, Vision, Courage and Passion.
Success as a leader often comes out of personal discipline and a dedication to that purpose. Not everyone in leadership is a great leader however; those who become truly transformational begin by transforming themselves. Transforming yourself involves personal discipline and a healthy balance of self renewal, self improvement and personal growth.
Unfortunately I have witnessed both types of leaders - those who could effect change and those who merely looked good in the part but were a sham. Those who were a facade seemed to have no personal discipline. In my experiences in the corporate world, I have followed a great leader, ( I have blogged about him here in another course) who was not recognised fully by the company and became "lost in the system" over time. Although we parted ways as leader and follower because I moved companies, it was easy to see from the bottom up how effective this guy could be, and was a model for my future endeavours. I believe that some leaders are born that way - able to lead through sheer personality; and other have to be taught. The true transformational leaders come from the former category.
The problem that seems to face these natural transformational leaders is that they are often seen as a threat early in their careers and are killed off by their bosses or their rivals, unless they are lucky enough to be in a company that fosters this kind of change. Perhaps a company like Google with an existing flat organization won't have people who are worried about the good ideas coming from anyone. Early in my career though, the game was played with office politics and maneuvering around the competition in a more manipulative way. Those with the really good ideas, the drive and the passion were often sucked in and used up with the credit going elsewhere or just moved on.
Once a leader has mastered self discipline, others will begin to be drawn to them, as I was to this guy. As purpose and direction are clarified, followers become committed to the cause and the potential for sweeping change develops into more of a reality. Leaders must have resolve to withstand challenges and press through in order to accomplish their purpose; something that is much more difficult today than it has been in the past, with jobs not easy to come by in organizations that look often at downsizing as they chase the shareholder value. Leadership takes personal sacrifice and servitude, if the role does not require these two elements; odds are the role is not one of leadership at all.
Being a leader requires the ability to get others to follow you and to buy into your way of thinking, however, not all leaders are radically different in their thought process. Only the truly great leaders of change are radical in their thought process and will stand up to the norms of the day.
Leadership is a tenuous exercise for most great personalities; they have to be conventional and irrational at the same time. Being different enough to invoke radical change yet not too far out where they are disconnected from their target audience. Certainly, there is a culmination of society’s readiness for change, a desire for leadership to lead that change and a personality capable of being that individualistic thinker, willing to lay down their own personal agenda and becoming the “servant leader” their followers need. The balance seems to be a fine one and the “crazy ones” all possessed the ability to inspire others to action; question conventional wisdom and ultimately stand in the face of adversity for their beliefs until change happened.
I believe that it is such a fine line, that many leaders fall from it, and are unsuccessful at leading transformational change. A connection is what I believe is needed with those that are being led. It could be a connection as in a policy or issue (see Barack Obama's first Change campaign for President) or it can be a connection through the people themselves (I am one of you, and can relate to your issues while I lead you). There are other leaders in history who are written off as being good at leadership because of the wrong route their leadership took them. Winston Churchill is always held up as a great leader - taking the British people through World War Two, never quitting, always fighting on. Adolf Hitler is correctly the antihero - yet prior to the start of World War Two he was seen as many, including the allies as a great leader. Although his policies turned out to be utterly flawed, his use of propaganda, jumping on a cause, being a man of the people and his oratory expertise, actually led an entire nation towards prosperity, economic might, political power and ultimately the strongest military force in the world. It would be hard to argue that Hitler did not capture the greater majority of the peoples of Germany in a leadership coup. I believe what I am saying about leadership is that we tend to think of it in the positive, yet there are leaders and have been leaders that have led their people, country or followers to disaster. To name a few - Hitler, Napolean, Jim Jones. Perhaps, what separates the great leaders of system wide interventions are qualities like emotional intelligence, empathy and integrity - and not just the traits found in most leaders - Judgement, Vision, Courage and Passion.
Success as a leader often comes out of personal discipline and a dedication to that purpose. Not everyone in leadership is a great leader however; those who become truly transformational begin by transforming themselves. Transforming yourself involves personal discipline and a healthy balance of self renewal, self improvement and personal growth.
Unfortunately I have witnessed both types of leaders - those who could effect change and those who merely looked good in the part but were a sham. Those who were a facade seemed to have no personal discipline. In my experiences in the corporate world, I have followed a great leader, ( I have blogged about him here in another course) who was not recognised fully by the company and became "lost in the system" over time. Although we parted ways as leader and follower because I moved companies, it was easy to see from the bottom up how effective this guy could be, and was a model for my future endeavours. I believe that some leaders are born that way - able to lead through sheer personality; and other have to be taught. The true transformational leaders come from the former category.
The problem that seems to face these natural transformational leaders is that they are often seen as a threat early in their careers and are killed off by their bosses or their rivals, unless they are lucky enough to be in a company that fosters this kind of change. Perhaps a company like Google with an existing flat organization won't have people who are worried about the good ideas coming from anyone. Early in my career though, the game was played with office politics and maneuvering around the competition in a more manipulative way. Those with the really good ideas, the drive and the passion were often sucked in and used up with the credit going elsewhere or just moved on.
Once a leader has mastered self discipline, others will begin to be drawn to them, as I was to this guy. As purpose and direction are clarified, followers become committed to the cause and the potential for sweeping change develops into more of a reality. Leaders must have resolve to withstand challenges and press through in order to accomplish their purpose; something that is much more difficult today than it has been in the past, with jobs not easy to come by in organizations that look often at downsizing as they chase the shareholder value. Leadership takes personal sacrifice and servitude, if the role does not require these two elements; odds are the role is not one of leadership at all.
November 14, 2013
A631.4.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
After watching this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM&feature=youtu.be answer the following questions:
What do you see as some of the major benefits and drawbacks of self-managed teams?
Self-directed work teams are becoming more prevalent in the workplace today. Many large and successful companies are utilizing the reduction of managerial layers and putting responsibility for performance, scheduling, methods and planning in the work team’s job description.
To me, self-manged work teams are the answer to many an organization's problems. One of the major issues of many large organizations is that the message and vision of the company is lost in the hierachy, and the workers feel no connection to that vision when they are made aware of it - largely because they are micro-managed (or in some cases poorly managed) by an army of middle mangers, all looking to keep the waters calm and their lives hassle free (see post in this blog May 18th 2013). I have worked in several organizations where after work I am able, all by myself to go out and buy a $40,000 car, and yet am not allowed to aroder a new box of paperclips at wprk wothout manager approval. In some organization, those middle managers fill most of their time fighting daily fires, or involving themsleves in areas that have no relevance to their job - IT issues for example (just becasue you are computer savvy as a manager, doesn't mean you should be the go to person for every IT issue that crops up in your department).
One of the major benefits as I see it of the self-managed team is that it is common sense. Given a budget, most people will not blow that budget, particularly if there are penalties associated with it, and yet while most adults are balancing budgets in their personal life, making life changing decisions for their own and children's lives on a weekly basis and managing their time as efficiently as possible to do the school run, work and grocery shopping as well as emergency doctor appointments, snow days and sickness, companies seem to be under the impression that when an employee walks into the company door, he must be treated like a kindergartener or else the company will go bust.
And yet at the other end of the spectrum, the people with the real power to make or break a company are only managed by a faceless shareholder, who is reactive, not proactive. Self managed teams also have the benefit of increasing worker satisfaction, building and retaining talent from within and also providing the solutions to problems from the very sharp end of where the problem is occuring. Just looking at a self-managed team from a cost saving viewpoint I don't understand why companies invariably opt for the complex organogram hierachies.
I am sure that the drawback mentioned in textbooks are valid, but I think the majority of them stem fromm poor leadership of those teams. As we saw in the video - management of these teams is a "balance beam" between micro management and stepping in in a crisis. The support structure for self-managed teams is what needs to be secure for this style to work - the reward system must be effective, team memebers need to be respected and listened to, managers must be certain of their role, and training must be comprehensive. If any of these pillars are weak, self-managed teams could be a disaster.
Would you like to work within such a team?
I would love to work in just such a team, becasue I think that the added responsibility of quality, budgeting etc would be all that I needed to fulfill my thirst for management. I beleieve I would get alot out of being in self-managed teams, and job satisfaction would not wane.
What competencies would you need to develop to be an effective external manager of a self-managed work team?
The greatest competencies would be the ability to listen and the ability to know when to step in and direct the team. It seems to me that these are the two hinges that matter in a self-managed team, and it is a very fine line to walk. Teams need to know tyou are both there and invisible at times, and that you have the confidence in them to be able to leave them to it. Knowing just when to enact the management part would probably be the hardest part to learn, and this is reflected in the video. In order to lead self-directed work teams leadership needs to be focused on the “greater good” and develop a servant-leadership style. The combative nature that many managerial teams and workforces operate under, have to be carefully restructured, trained for and implemented with an attitude of success for the organization as an underlying principal. Lastly, the building of quality relationships will be paramount to the norms that are set within the team. How the external leader establishes the individual relationships will determine how other members of the team are willing to treat each other. Having that strong interpersonal relationship building skill is a must for any external leader.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM&feature=youtu.be answer the following questions:
What do you see as some of the major benefits and drawbacks of self-managed teams?
Self-directed work teams are becoming more prevalent in the workplace today. Many large and successful companies are utilizing the reduction of managerial layers and putting responsibility for performance, scheduling, methods and planning in the work team’s job description.
To me, self-manged work teams are the answer to many an organization's problems. One of the major issues of many large organizations is that the message and vision of the company is lost in the hierachy, and the workers feel no connection to that vision when they are made aware of it - largely because they are micro-managed (or in some cases poorly managed) by an army of middle mangers, all looking to keep the waters calm and their lives hassle free (see post in this blog May 18th 2013). I have worked in several organizations where after work I am able, all by myself to go out and buy a $40,000 car, and yet am not allowed to aroder a new box of paperclips at wprk wothout manager approval. In some organization, those middle managers fill most of their time fighting daily fires, or involving themsleves in areas that have no relevance to their job - IT issues for example (just becasue you are computer savvy as a manager, doesn't mean you should be the go to person for every IT issue that crops up in your department).
One of the major benefits as I see it of the self-managed team is that it is common sense. Given a budget, most people will not blow that budget, particularly if there are penalties associated with it, and yet while most adults are balancing budgets in their personal life, making life changing decisions for their own and children's lives on a weekly basis and managing their time as efficiently as possible to do the school run, work and grocery shopping as well as emergency doctor appointments, snow days and sickness, companies seem to be under the impression that when an employee walks into the company door, he must be treated like a kindergartener or else the company will go bust.
And yet at the other end of the spectrum, the people with the real power to make or break a company are only managed by a faceless shareholder, who is reactive, not proactive. Self managed teams also have the benefit of increasing worker satisfaction, building and retaining talent from within and also providing the solutions to problems from the very sharp end of where the problem is occuring. Just looking at a self-managed team from a cost saving viewpoint I don't understand why companies invariably opt for the complex organogram hierachies.
I am sure that the drawback mentioned in textbooks are valid, but I think the majority of them stem fromm poor leadership of those teams. As we saw in the video - management of these teams is a "balance beam" between micro management and stepping in in a crisis. The support structure for self-managed teams is what needs to be secure for this style to work - the reward system must be effective, team memebers need to be respected and listened to, managers must be certain of their role, and training must be comprehensive. If any of these pillars are weak, self-managed teams could be a disaster.
Would you like to work within such a team?
I would love to work in just such a team, becasue I think that the added responsibility of quality, budgeting etc would be all that I needed to fulfill my thirst for management. I beleieve I would get alot out of being in self-managed teams, and job satisfaction would not wane.
What competencies would you need to develop to be an effective external manager of a self-managed work team?
The greatest competencies would be the ability to listen and the ability to know when to step in and direct the team. It seems to me that these are the two hinges that matter in a self-managed team, and it is a very fine line to walk. Teams need to know tyou are both there and invisible at times, and that you have the confidence in them to be able to leave them to it. Knowing just when to enact the management part would probably be the hardest part to learn, and this is reflected in the video. In order to lead self-directed work teams leadership needs to be focused on the “greater good” and develop a servant-leadership style. The combative nature that many managerial teams and workforces operate under, have to be carefully restructured, trained for and implemented with an attitude of success for the organization as an underlying principal. Lastly, the building of quality relationships will be paramount to the norms that are set within the team. How the external leader establishes the individual relationships will determine how other members of the team are willing to treat each other. Having that strong interpersonal relationship building skill is a must for any external leader.
November 13, 2013
A631.3.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
On page 321 of your Brown textbook, you will find a passage called
Feedback and Goals Improve Performance. Review the section and also search the
Hunt Library for 3-5 additional resources on how feedback and goals relate to
performance.
In a well-written
blog, describe your understanding of the importance of feedback and goals to
performance.
There is nothing more important in my
opinion than well timed and well executed feedback on an employee’s performance
– effective for the manager as well as the employer. From the manager’s point of view it is a good
opportunity to recap what it is that you want from your employee, where he
stands against the goals that you set him and also a general reminder about the
state of the health of the section the employee is working in. If feedback is well timed, a manager should
be able to spot a trend (say in decreasing sales or in lackluster performance)
and then adjust targets or maybe provide additional support or training to the
employee before the situation worsens.
In my position as Head of Sales at
Pickfords in the UK, I had to set performance sales targets for the field reps
that we had. I actually let them decide
their own targets in agreement with me and then let them attempt to achieve
them. Every quarter they would be called
into the office to discuss their performance to date, the reasons why their
results were good or bad, and what needed to be done to complete the year
successfully. The opportunity for
feedback was invaluable. Firstly, the
one-on-one contact was important from a relationship with these reps that were
largely invisible in the office from week to week as they were out on the road
all day. Secondly, after assessing their performance towards their goals, these
reps could make an informed decision on their own performance – they knew when
they were doing bad, knew why, and would always come prepared with a bank of
excuses for it if they needed them. Of
course, that never helped them; I just used those excuses for training ideas,
which lessoned their ability to make that excuse again. For example, a rep with poor sales may have
blamed it on a slow time of year. His
remedy would be that the spring and summer were coming and be sure to make up
the shortfall – whether this was the case or not, we would agree, adjust
targets to make up and perhaps suggest ideas for additional sales. Of course, when successful, they were
encouraged to continue, and were always receiving small ‘water cooler’ pats on
the back if I saw good progress towards the goals. “Leaders should maintain
optimism by publicizing even small steps forward” (Brown, 2011).
The third best reason for feedback was
to glean techniques that were working in the field from others and then share
them around. Best practice was always
changing as society moved its opinion with what they wanted from a moving
company. The rep that wasn’t flexible
enough to adapt to each customers needs were not the ones that won the
business. Often, the “flavor of the
month sales pitch” could be gleaned from one and shared among the rest for a
better group effort.
Interestingly, although you always
heard grumblings behind closed doors from one rep that “it was a waste of his
time coming into the office for feedback” I believe he was the one that benefitted
from it the most. He certainly was the
one who needed it the most!
What are your thoughts
regarding Brown's contention that there are generational differences in the
amount of feedback desired by employees? How much feedback do you generally
give and receive?
It is interesting to read that there is
a generational difference in the amount of feedback required and at first I
could not understand why that would be so.
Perhaps the older generation requires less feedback because they have
the experience to know what works and what doesn’t and feedback is not
necessary. This would work well in the
case of manufacturing, where experience would hold true, however, in a changing
sales environment this may not. With
constant new products and services, and clients that are undoubtedly being
replaced or joined by younger generation partners, there is always going to be
a connection issue. I saw this during my
time as a rep. Many times, the
established rep that had been on the patch for many years had a great
relationship with the owner of a veterinary practice. But as new vets graduated and joined the
practice, these younger vets had been trained differently, had used newer drugs
from other companies and were no longer using the older methods of treatment
that many older generations of vets were used to. This meant that unless your company was
producing new products all the time, the younger vets were demanding the newer
products to use from other companies.
Secondly, when the inevitable happened and the older partner retires,
the relationship the company had with that practice retires with it. In fact, the generational gap seemed to
follow in step. Newer reps would build
relationships with the vets that were their age, and so waiting to take the
reigns when retirement beckoned the main partner. I believe this was because the feedback
between the generations was different.
Different generations connect better, and regardless of weather the
feedback is the same, the feedback is accepted better from someone of your own
generation.
I’ve always tried to let my employees
make their own mistakes while providing encouragement and applause when
something goes well, and wait for employees to come to me to ask for help when
they need it. It makes them understand
that while there is an open door, I trust their skills – but everyone needs
some help now and again. If I see
something not going right, I may enquire how things are and gauge their
reaction from it. I’ve rarely had to
force feedback on an employee – they usually come to me first when they see
themselves failing at the targets they said they could obtain. Feedback I currently get is very little, and
much too late in the day to be useful.
My immediate boss waits until the assigned period of 6 monthly feedback,
then accomplishes them at the 9-month mark, leaving 3 months to fix anything
that is wrong. What happens is we set
ourselves targets that we know are easy to fulfill regardless of the
situation. For example, one of my
targets was to complete 6 credits this year at ERAU. Conversely though this just helps to decrease
my willingness to do better: “research suggests that success motivates less
than failure does. Because successes generally confirm prior expectancies and increase
confidence in established routines, they may reduce the cost of behavioral
inertia and tend to discourage any cognitive activity designed to invoke
immediate change.” (Cianci et al, 2010).
In other words, the more I succeed at achieving targets, the worse my
performance will become over time. As I constantly
set myself easy targets and a weak boss accepts these, there can be little hope
for departmental improvement.
Have you found that for
you personally, having specific goals and receiving targeted feedback has led
to more engagement, higher performance, or any other benefits (or drawbacks)?
I like to receive general goals, but
personally hate specific targets. My
hated of specificity has come from a lack of timely feedback. Specific goals in my opinion only work when
regular feedback at the point at which you can turn things around is forthcoming. It’s pointless telling me I missed my first
quarter target, if my boss had every opportunity to tell me this mid way
through the quarter and we came up with ways in which to get me back on target. Although it is my responsibility to hit a
target, in my opinion, it is my boss’s responsibility to make sure that I
do. I’ve had a lot of different bosses,
and I have to say, not one of them has been able to get this balance
right. I think more feedback is better
than less, but constantly staying in touch is just as important for a
boss. Building a relationship – even if
it’s just while you both get coffee in the morning is probably more important
feedback than sitting in the office twice a year discussing targets. I’m engaged when I think my boss is just as
engaged. His engagement reflects in my
work, and my current bosses dis-interest in my position produces exactly what
she gets. I do my job and go home. I will bypass her looking for promotional
opportunities; I will gladly work harder for someone else who shows they care.
References:
Cianci, A. M., Schaubroeck, J. M., & McGill, G. A. (2010). Achievement Goals, Feedback, and Task Performance. Human Performance, 23(2), 131-154.
Brown, D.R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization
development (8th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
November 1, 2013
A631.2.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Once you have completed and turned in A631.2.4.LT, consider the process that you and your team went through in completing the Learning Team Charter. In a well-written reflection blog, answer the following questions:
What behaviors seemed to help your team successfully complete its task?
Leadership was the initial overall trait that helped our team get on the right track and stay on it. As all of us have had much experience in the past with groups that worked well and with those that fell apart, we knew that a good start was imperative. Not only does it set the tone for the group, but it also gives an example for the group to follow, which is one of the main reasons I took the lead initially. " It takes great leadership to build great teams. Leaders who are not afraid to course correct, make the difficult decisions and establish standards of performance that are constantly being met – and improving at all times." (Llopis, 2012). I have found that setting out exactly what is required, when it is to be completed and then having everyone stick to that schedule, simplifies the activities of the group and creates a "i can do this attitude". As the weeks progress, the tasks become more complicated, and so it is imperative that everyone ahead of time knows exactly what to work on for the group to contribute, and understands the 'big picture' of accomplishment and content. Co-operation was also essential. Leadership doesn't work if right at the start people are not willing to cooperate for one reason or another. I find however, that this rarely happens because people like to know where they stand and what to get on with, without having to put in too much effort initially. Finally, communication was key. Good, open communication is enhanced using the discussion board. It allows us to create new topics for discussion, have particular places to discuss each module so that the discussion is less complicated and attached files are easy to find. Additionally it allows us to initially understand the time constraints of each member.
What factors inhibited decision-making or problem-solving?
The different time zones and work ethics of the group in the end did not become inhibiting factors, but they were a concern initially. One member will only work in the evenings due to his job, another is travelling extensively during the week. During module 3 I will be away with the family on vacation and doing my best to check in - all of these could have had huge impacts on the work, but because of the time management skills, and the fact that we set out a schedule for completion in advance, these issues were non-issues in the end.
How much time was spent on decision-making and problem-solving?
We didn't really need to spend much time on decision making. Everyone's ideas are included in the charter, and I set out the rest of the semester's workload to be divided up equally among group members - who each chose a section to lead. We will combine in teams of two to finish the last two modules together in small teams of two. As there were no problems, this was also a non-issue, but the discussion board and email are easy and effective routes of communication to problem solve as they come up.
How was information shared among team members?
Information was all shared electronically through the facilities provided in Blackboard. File exchange is used to hold finalized work so that members do not have to search through many posts to find the last update, but attachments to posts are made during the draft stages for ease of use. We did email a couple of times to clarify. Using Blackboard is the best solution for information sharing as everyone understands how it works, has the program downloaded onto their computer and there are never many technical issues or user issues you can have when attempting to use a file sharing software like Google Docs. Brown says that "team building is an intervention where the members of a group examine such things as..their ability to work together effectively and efficiently." (2011), and this exercise has I do just that; setting out our expectations and sharing what we thought the best way to be most effective is.
How did issues of authority or power affect the team?
There were no issues of authority or power. As everyone is experienced in the group and perfectly able to take the lead, it was just a matter of who would take the lead first. As the only fair way to divide group work is to have everyone lead at least one section, authority and power is transferred each section. I believe that everyone accepts this as the standard way to operate in groups now.
How did collaboration and competition influence the outcome?
Collaboration always influences the outcome, though in this case, each person worked interdependently to produce the final product. It was evident that there was some duplication of ideas initially, but we collaborated well to make sure good ideas were not simply repeated. Where the discussion board really works is in communication. It provides a forum where "candid and clear discussion of what people are thinking and feeling... [that] asks questions to make sure there is a genuine expression of beliefs, expectations and even fears, while also patiently ensuring that the conversation remains relevant to the big picture" (Harkins, 2008). Open and honest communication is always forthcoming on the group discussion board where only a few selected and trusted individuals with the same goals are seeing the posts.
Did team members make process interventions?
As process interventions "are all about how the group is going about accomplishing its task" (Brown, 2011), there were a few minor interventions. Initially, setting the agenda was important. The first post on the discussion board was doing exactly that - making suggestions on how the work was to be organized, who should work on what and then setting the manager for the section and setting the deadlines for completion. The entire project was really also about providing support and counselling; another process intervention. Brown describes this intervention as "encouraging group members to talk and express their ideas" (2011). The purpose of the charter is to have everyone write down what they expect and want from the group work and then synthesizing these thoughts into a common theme. One last intervention comes as Listening. Although physically reading, the members all got to read about what has and has not worked in previous groups - particularly the point about dwindling interest towards the end of the semester. This may be particularly true this semester because it finishes near Christmas - a very busy time for almost everyone. Having listened to these points of view the group has organized a work schedule that has us completing the weeks work well ahead of schedule. This allows the manager to get feedback from the lecturer and gives room to maneuver deadlines before the hand in date.
reference:
Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.
Llopis, G. (2012). 6 ways successful teams are built to last. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2012/10/01/6-ways-successful-teams-are-built-to-last/
Harkins, P. (2008). 10 leadership techniques for building high performance teams. The Linkage Leader. Retrieved from: http://www.linkageinc.com/thinking/linkageleader/Documents/PhilHarkins_10_Leadership_Techniques_for_Building_High_Performing_Teams_0506.pdf
October 27, 2013
A631.1.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Review the OD Application found on page 274 of your textbook. Then view the videos below:
http://youtu.be/zCOfOFMiLtE and http://youtu.be/Etwuap-_Azk
Do you see value in the EcoSeagate team development process?
I really do see the benefits of this team development process, even if it isn't the somewhat lavish affair that EcoSeagate is, I think that the benefits of these team building exercises far outweigh the monetary costs. Not only do courses like this teach you how to solve conflict, how to work together with individuals that you have never met before and how to come together to solve a problem; these courses also teach a group of people that work in the same company who each other is, where they come from and how well each can perform under pressure, or in social situations. I believe that just such a course will break down those barriers that exist between colleagues, especially because people you work with are often isolated in a work environment, with everything that that entails - hierarchy, job description or other separator. What EcoSeagate, and other courses just like it will have you realize is that everyone is just a human being, and so much can be accomplished through just working together as humans.
Why would something like this be necessary in a high-performing organization?
Something like this is necessary in a high performing organization because those very same barriers we just talked about still exist in the workplace, and breaking them down is even more crucial in an organization that needs to be efficient as possible. Efficiency in problem solving, in teamwork, in being able to come together to either devise the next big thing for the company or to work through the next big issue and come up with a solution together is vital today for a company that wants to compete in a fast paced environment. I also think that such courses are good for morale, and also for staff retention. Often companies can lose sight of the talent that they have, and EcoSeagate can act in two ways. Firstly it shows the participants that the company is willing to invest in them. When I was a Sales Rep for Hoechst, every year the company spent large amounts of money on a sales conference - where all the reps went with the sales and marketing departments to a foreign country - where we mixed the latest product launches with some company paid leisure trips. They were great - they got the reps excited about the new products, and also instilled in them a sense of belonging, a sense that you meant something to the company, and a sense that the company was still going somewhere. You never felt you were about to be downsized.
I hope that the participants of EcoSeagate would be feeling the same way - valued, important and part of something much bigger than just their cubicle. I'm sure they return home just full of beans!
http://youtu.be/zCOfOFMiLtE and http://youtu.be/Etwuap-_Azk
Do you see value in the EcoSeagate team development process?
I really do see the benefits of this team development process, even if it isn't the somewhat lavish affair that EcoSeagate is, I think that the benefits of these team building exercises far outweigh the monetary costs. Not only do courses like this teach you how to solve conflict, how to work together with individuals that you have never met before and how to come together to solve a problem; these courses also teach a group of people that work in the same company who each other is, where they come from and how well each can perform under pressure, or in social situations. I believe that just such a course will break down those barriers that exist between colleagues, especially because people you work with are often isolated in a work environment, with everything that that entails - hierarchy, job description or other separator. What EcoSeagate, and other courses just like it will have you realize is that everyone is just a human being, and so much can be accomplished through just working together as humans.
Why would something like this be necessary in a high-performing organization?
Something like this is necessary in a high performing organization because those very same barriers we just talked about still exist in the workplace, and breaking them down is even more crucial in an organization that needs to be efficient as possible. Efficiency in problem solving, in teamwork, in being able to come together to either devise the next big thing for the company or to work through the next big issue and come up with a solution together is vital today for a company that wants to compete in a fast paced environment. I also think that such courses are good for morale, and also for staff retention. Often companies can lose sight of the talent that they have, and EcoSeagate can act in two ways. Firstly it shows the participants that the company is willing to invest in them. When I was a Sales Rep for Hoechst, every year the company spent large amounts of money on a sales conference - where all the reps went with the sales and marketing departments to a foreign country - where we mixed the latest product launches with some company paid leisure trips. They were great - they got the reps excited about the new products, and also instilled in them a sense of belonging, a sense that you meant something to the company, and a sense that the company was still going somewhere. You never felt you were about to be downsized.
I hope that the participants of EcoSeagate would be feeling the same way - valued, important and part of something much bigger than just their cubicle. I'm sure they return home just full of beans!
Could your organization benefit from a similar activity?
Merck could definitely benefit from this sort of activity, yet I doubt that the shareholders who are in it for the short term would be very happy with the first CEO who decided to give it a go. And this is the biggest problem with the largest of companies today - they chase the dreams of the shareholder far more often than they invest in retaining talent that they have. Merck today is about meeting shareholder value. If Merck has to cut 20% of it's workforce to keep those shareholders happy, then so be it. The consequences of this are far reaching - and probably immeasurable, and that is why the formula stays. Because you can't measure the success of any EcoSeagate very accurately, because in order to justify having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a good team spirit, or to be unable to prove that a participants now energized enthusiasm for the company will produce anything more than it did before the course - then companies don't do it. Laying off a person has a monetary value - the effect it has on that person's colleagues does not.
Merck really needs to build a sense of belonging, a sense of value and a sense that those left out of the cuts are really an investment in the future and not just the next in line for further cuts later on. Conflict is mostly non-existent because people at Merck are not prepared to make waves in case they make the short list for downsizing. But so is innovation, efficiency and the pursuit of excellence. Working for Merck is like telling all the kids at a birthday party to smile for the camera and then blowing out the candles yourself just before you take the picture.
Merck could definitely benefit from this sort of activity, yet I doubt that the shareholders who are in it for the short term would be very happy with the first CEO who decided to give it a go. And this is the biggest problem with the largest of companies today - they chase the dreams of the shareholder far more often than they invest in retaining talent that they have. Merck today is about meeting shareholder value. If Merck has to cut 20% of it's workforce to keep those shareholders happy, then so be it. The consequences of this are far reaching - and probably immeasurable, and that is why the formula stays. Because you can't measure the success of any EcoSeagate very accurately, because in order to justify having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a good team spirit, or to be unable to prove that a participants now energized enthusiasm for the company will produce anything more than it did before the course - then companies don't do it. Laying off a person has a monetary value - the effect it has on that person's colleagues does not.
Merck really needs to build a sense of belonging, a sense of value and a sense that those left out of the cuts are really an investment in the future and not just the next in line for further cuts later on. Conflict is mostly non-existent because people at Merck are not prepared to make waves in case they make the short list for downsizing. But so is innovation, efficiency and the pursuit of excellence. Working for Merck is like telling all the kids at a birthday party to smile for the camera and then blowing out the candles yourself just before you take the picture.
October 6, 2013
A630.9.4.RB _LloydPayneDamien
Watch this video:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/eric_schmidt_on_business_culture_technology_and_social_issues and answer these questions:
Does Schmidt's description of the Google Culture make sense to you?
It does make sense in so much as it is obvious that Google wants the right people in their company and not just the qualified people in there. So many companies now send out a job description, primarily sort out the applicants due to initial requirements and qualifications and then interview everyone who is left. At the interview, the interviewers know that on paper they are qualified to do the job, now all they have to do is find the one that is the best fit for the company. For most experienced people, this is an easy workaround as the interviewee. Essentially, you have to be well dressed, polite, don't say anything controversial and then make them smile a lot or laugh a little. I tend to treat interviews in a backwards fashion. I do all of the above, yet treat it as if I am interviewing them. I want to see if this company is the right fit for me. Are the people friendly?, can I determine their work ethic? is this a good career move for me? What starts as an interview normally ends up being a conversation, and that is what makes you likable and gets you hired. I've never been through 5 interviews before - let alone 15, so I don't know how much more they are finding out......
Is this a reasonable way to view the work that most people are doing in your workplace?
I think it's reasonable, because you have to let employees give you 100% of their effort, rather than force them to do it by brow-beating them. Giving them the time to work on non-related subjects lets them let off steam, and maybe even create something that is a market winner. (See post-it notes) I like the idea of a flexible company like this - but I imagine it's harder for the managers to let go than it is for the employees to adopt.
As a leader, does it take courage to have and to implement this point of view?
Sure, it does. It's a different style of leadership that most may not be used to as a leader - but leadership is doing the right thing, and it seems to be working right now at Google. What seems to be apparent is the series of checks and balances installed at google though, combined with the right personnel this makes for a well oiled machine that lets leaders take care of the major problems and not the minutia.
Could this approach backfire?
Yes it could - but only if the hiring process goes wrong. I think that's why they do so many interviews, to wheedle out the guys that make them smile and laugh, and are qualified on paper, but are in it for the money or the glory, and not for the work. I'm sure there are a few that slip through the net, just as there are people who can fool a lie detector test; but that is half the fun of interviewing. It's like a box a chocolates without a guide - you never really know what you've got until it's a little late. When I was first started hiring at Pickfords, I was pretty new to it, yet knew exactly what I was looking for. You can tell if someone is intelligent from talking to them, and I consider myself a pretty good judge of character. I don't get all corporate and high and mighty on them, I beak the ice and start a good conversation. But as a backup, I started using an agency. They pre-screened candidates and I was able to request more from them than I would be able to by law. For example I could ask them to send me candidate that were all under 30, or nobody who was a student and likely to leave - all those things you can't "legally" ask someone in an interview can be sorted first by the agency. Then of course, the full time employee for the first 6 weeks works for the agency and I buy them from them if they work out. If they don't I get someone else, no hassle, no excuses and no civil suits for wrongful dismissal! Although the costs were higher to recruit because of the transfer fees from the agency when they became my employee, it wasn't prohibitive and left me free to discover mistakes I would inevitably make and not get landed with a duff employee that was just good at interviews. It worked out great and I got some great employees this way.
What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
I'd like to actually experience a different interview process rather than all the standard ones I now consider myself pretty adept at, so that I could use this in the future myself - can anyone get me a sit in on a Google interview or 12?
Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.
Employment isn't just about qualification. To me a degree shows that you can stick to something and complete it, and probably means you are more socially adaptable to different environments. It's also not just about personality. A 15 minute interview may go well, but can you stand the guy for a whole week? It's not also just about stereotypes; young women are not just going to get pregnant and you can teach an old dog new tricks. 23 year olds' can make good managers just as well as the 40 something they always pick over him. Leadership in hiring is about taking a leap of faith - maybe even a controlled risk, but hiring the right person isn't always something that shows in an interview or on a resume.
October 3, 2013
A630.8.4.RB _LloydPayneDamien
After viewing the video http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower.html
reflect on the following questions:
Do you agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergartners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students?
I loved this video, because for 5 minutes I was captivated and motivated. It showed how Topsy-Turvey the world of business really is! I do agree with Tom's analysis, and having had kids it is easy to see why. Kids have an inbuilt ability to get on with each other - something that is lost over time to adults, and I am not sure why. Most mothers will tell you that they worry and fret for weeks about their little ones going to school for the first time, but when they drop them off the kid runs into the playground and immediately just starts playing with some other strange kid - much to the bemusement and ire of the mother. How is it possible, that children can be firm friends in under five minutes and yet adults can spend a lifetime living next to their next door neighbor and not even know their name? If the secret is just a loss of inhibitions and a naive ability to ask and communicate - then wouldn't the world of business be a much better and more productive place for it? If we had kept the skills of social interaction that we obviously had as a 4 or 5 year old - would we really need direction from a manager on daily tasks? As adults we look for someone to take charge, for someone to tell us what to do. We rarely question the assigned leader, because someone else made the decision that he was fit to lead. Take a board of directors for example. They choose the CEO and make them accountable for the business performance, and meet once a quarter and discuss strategy and business direction. But who appointed the Board? It wasn't God, so who says they are any better at giving advice on share buybacks or slashing the workforce than you and I? The answer is probably no one, but by loosing their inhibitions in a group environment and by taking the opportunities to lead where others have left a vacuum, they have found themselves in the executive bathroom of teamwork.
Can you think of any other reasons why kids might perform better?
Several. Kids don't argue or assume that they are more right than the next kid - they just try everything and move on. Kids don't say 'no' as often as adults, or have set opinions on what works and what doesn't. As each kid has little experience in anything, then all suggestions bear equal weight. As big business will tell you that 'experience matters', one wonders if there is any real grounds for that assumption based on Tom Wujec's example. Finally, kids have not developed an ego or been typecast into a household role (the boss, the peacemaker, the breadwinner, the house husband etc etc).
In your view, why do CEOs with an executive assistant perform better than a group of CEO's alone?
The answer is power. CEO's think they know more than everyone else in the company - after all, that is why they are CEO right? When you are paid million of dollars, have the use of the company jet and helicopter, stay in $1100 a night hotels, and eat out in NYC three times a week with other "considerably important" CEO's - you get conditioned into thinking this, weather you like it or not. It's something that is harder to fight against than it is just to accept. You deal with multi million dollar questions on an hourly basis, are responsible for the very survival of thousands of families. It's somewhat akin to a "God Complex" that some doctors fall foul of. Now put two of them together and give them a task. Suddenly, we are in a fight to see who is best, who will win - it's a matter of pride and some insane belief that it really matters. Executive assistants have no such delusions of grandeur. They are there to learn, to facilitate and to help out. To make the impossible possible and still have all the paperwork in order when it's demanded. With an assistant on board, they are playing the role of the glue that bonds a team together. Not needing to have an ego in their role, the executive assistant can quickly cut through the bull, and respectfully challenge the leadership, while moving the whole process forward. CEO's make decisions, executive assistants see that those decisions are enacted - and this is what they do here - combining the several no doubt perfect ideas into a better structure.
If you were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, how could you relate the video to process intervention skills?
As the text lays out, the principal point of an intervention workshop is to help work groups become more aware of the way they operate and work together. It's all about teamwork, and the roles that we take within those teams. Trial and error are key to getting the job done, and members must sympathetically listen and reflect feelings to one another for the team to be effective in that trial and error stage. The goal is that this group will take away this knowledge to develop their own problem solving techniques. The job of the OD Practitioner would be to facilitate activities that help bring this to fruition.
What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
I think I would use this exercise as a model for how to effectively demonstrate open communication and members must be be willing to hear the ideas of others within my own teams. I must remember to be always open to new ideas, to trial new methods and not stick with the way it has always been done - asking for and hopefully getting creative solutions. Empowerment is also key here - any my career will be about empowering people for new insights and better performance.
Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.
I want to be 5 again!
reflect on the following questions:
Do you agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergartners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students?
I loved this video, because for 5 minutes I was captivated and motivated. It showed how Topsy-Turvey the world of business really is! I do agree with Tom's analysis, and having had kids it is easy to see why. Kids have an inbuilt ability to get on with each other - something that is lost over time to adults, and I am not sure why. Most mothers will tell you that they worry and fret for weeks about their little ones going to school for the first time, but when they drop them off the kid runs into the playground and immediately just starts playing with some other strange kid - much to the bemusement and ire of the mother. How is it possible, that children can be firm friends in under five minutes and yet adults can spend a lifetime living next to their next door neighbor and not even know their name? If the secret is just a loss of inhibitions and a naive ability to ask and communicate - then wouldn't the world of business be a much better and more productive place for it? If we had kept the skills of social interaction that we obviously had as a 4 or 5 year old - would we really need direction from a manager on daily tasks? As adults we look for someone to take charge, for someone to tell us what to do. We rarely question the assigned leader, because someone else made the decision that he was fit to lead. Take a board of directors for example. They choose the CEO and make them accountable for the business performance, and meet once a quarter and discuss strategy and business direction. But who appointed the Board? It wasn't God, so who says they are any better at giving advice on share buybacks or slashing the workforce than you and I? The answer is probably no one, but by loosing their inhibitions in a group environment and by taking the opportunities to lead where others have left a vacuum, they have found themselves in the executive bathroom of teamwork.
Can you think of any other reasons why kids might perform better?
Several. Kids don't argue or assume that they are more right than the next kid - they just try everything and move on. Kids don't say 'no' as often as adults, or have set opinions on what works and what doesn't. As each kid has little experience in anything, then all suggestions bear equal weight. As big business will tell you that 'experience matters', one wonders if there is any real grounds for that assumption based on Tom Wujec's example. Finally, kids have not developed an ego or been typecast into a household role (the boss, the peacemaker, the breadwinner, the house husband etc etc).
In your view, why do CEOs with an executive assistant perform better than a group of CEO's alone?
The answer is power. CEO's think they know more than everyone else in the company - after all, that is why they are CEO right? When you are paid million of dollars, have the use of the company jet and helicopter, stay in $1100 a night hotels, and eat out in NYC three times a week with other "considerably important" CEO's - you get conditioned into thinking this, weather you like it or not. It's something that is harder to fight against than it is just to accept. You deal with multi million dollar questions on an hourly basis, are responsible for the very survival of thousands of families. It's somewhat akin to a "God Complex" that some doctors fall foul of. Now put two of them together and give them a task. Suddenly, we are in a fight to see who is best, who will win - it's a matter of pride and some insane belief that it really matters. Executive assistants have no such delusions of grandeur. They are there to learn, to facilitate and to help out. To make the impossible possible and still have all the paperwork in order when it's demanded. With an assistant on board, they are playing the role of the glue that bonds a team together. Not needing to have an ego in their role, the executive assistant can quickly cut through the bull, and respectfully challenge the leadership, while moving the whole process forward. CEO's make decisions, executive assistants see that those decisions are enacted - and this is what they do here - combining the several no doubt perfect ideas into a better structure.
If you were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, how could you relate the video to process intervention skills?
As the text lays out, the principal point of an intervention workshop is to help work groups become more aware of the way they operate and work together. It's all about teamwork, and the roles that we take within those teams. Trial and error are key to getting the job done, and members must sympathetically listen and reflect feelings to one another for the team to be effective in that trial and error stage. The goal is that this group will take away this knowledge to develop their own problem solving techniques. The job of the OD Practitioner would be to facilitate activities that help bring this to fruition.
What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
I think I would use this exercise as a model for how to effectively demonstrate open communication and members must be be willing to hear the ideas of others within my own teams. I must remember to be always open to new ideas, to trial new methods and not stick with the way it has always been done - asking for and hopefully getting creative solutions. Empowerment is also key here - any my career will be about empowering people for new insights and better performance.
Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.
I want to be 5 again!
September 24, 2013
A630.7.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
After viewing the video, (http://digital.films.com/play/GWEU7L) reflect on the following questions:
Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, states that Honeywell will not be an extension of the old Honeywell or Allied Signal. He is creating a new culture that blends the best of the merged companies of Honeywell and Allied Signal. He says that Honeywell will compensate and reward people that look for best practices from both companies in creating a new corporate culture and punish those who do not. Do you predict Honeywell will be successful?
I predict that Honeywell will be successful despite itself. I am not entirely convinced that the leadership at Honeywell is what is making it successful nor is it a type of leadership that surpasses the sheer size of the company. Honeywell is merging it's way to success rather than being successful at what it does. Honeywell seems like a company with it's fingers in so many pies that the failure of just a few of them has no real effect on the overall performance of this massive company. Merging with many smaller companies over the years has spread the risk and meant that Honeywell, which was once a recognised brand, is now a good brand name without a specific portfolio.
What barriers do you see based on what you observed in the video?
One of the largest barriers is that of culture and identity. As Honeywell continues to merge with companies, the culture becomes something else entirely, neither the culture from the previous companies, but something new entirely. In addition, Honeywell moves it's 100 year corporate headquarters to New Jersey, where it has little standing in the community, and so much of it's identity is lost. Companies without a culture, find themselves lost without further acquisitions to bolster the bottom line, which in turn further waters down the brand. Another barrier is going to be the concept of punishing those that do not comply to the new way of doing things. I am not convinced that the benefits will outweigh the negativity of punishing the non-compiler's.
What critical success factors should Honeywell consider as it crafts its organizational strategies around a new culture?
Behavioral, structural, and technological (change) factors must be considered in relation to the new organization as its strategies are created and a new culture results. These different elements must work together in synergy to create a new company with set values. The biggest factors for success will be the people who work for the company. If they are driven and the goals align with their values and perception of where the company should be headed, then it is all the more likely to find success. Communication is also going to be key in this post merger time. All mergers have employees comparing what they used to have with what they now have, and often it is the negatives that prevail in mythology. At Merck, the recent merger of Shering Plough and Merck meant that the new Merck would provide the best of both company practices, just as was promised at Honeywell. What in fact transcended was that the cheapest (for Merck) of the two was offered to the employees. Communication as to why the changes were selected was non-existent, leaving employees to make up their own minds.
Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.
Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, states that Honeywell will not be an extension of the old Honeywell or Allied Signal. He is creating a new culture that blends the best of the merged companies of Honeywell and Allied Signal. He says that Honeywell will compensate and reward people that look for best practices from both companies in creating a new corporate culture and punish those who do not. Do you predict Honeywell will be successful?
I predict that Honeywell will be successful despite itself. I am not entirely convinced that the leadership at Honeywell is what is making it successful nor is it a type of leadership that surpasses the sheer size of the company. Honeywell is merging it's way to success rather than being successful at what it does. Honeywell seems like a company with it's fingers in so many pies that the failure of just a few of them has no real effect on the overall performance of this massive company. Merging with many smaller companies over the years has spread the risk and meant that Honeywell, which was once a recognised brand, is now a good brand name without a specific portfolio.
What barriers do you see based on what you observed in the video?
One of the largest barriers is that of culture and identity. As Honeywell continues to merge with companies, the culture becomes something else entirely, neither the culture from the previous companies, but something new entirely. In addition, Honeywell moves it's 100 year corporate headquarters to New Jersey, where it has little standing in the community, and so much of it's identity is lost. Companies without a culture, find themselves lost without further acquisitions to bolster the bottom line, which in turn further waters down the brand. Another barrier is going to be the concept of punishing those that do not comply to the new way of doing things. I am not convinced that the benefits will outweigh the negativity of punishing the non-compiler's.
What critical success factors should Honeywell consider as it crafts its organizational strategies around a new culture?
Behavioral, structural, and technological (change) factors must be considered in relation to the new organization as its strategies are created and a new culture results. These different elements must work together in synergy to create a new company with set values. The biggest factors for success will be the people who work for the company. If they are driven and the goals align with their values and perception of where the company should be headed, then it is all the more likely to find success. Communication is also going to be key in this post merger time. All mergers have employees comparing what they used to have with what they now have, and often it is the negatives that prevail in mythology. At Merck, the recent merger of Shering Plough and Merck meant that the new Merck would provide the best of both company practices, just as was promised at Honeywell. What in fact transcended was that the cheapest (for Merck) of the two was offered to the employees. Communication as to why the changes were selected was non-existent, leaving employees to make up their own minds.
Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.
- Are mergers a fad, and really just an excuse to give shareholder value rather than customer satisfaction.
- To big to fail companies are now a buzz word recognised and abhorred by the public. The public perception of larger companies is that they want bailing out after their own poor decisions, yet don't want to pay taxes when things are good. They have politicians in their pockets through excessive lobbying, and CEO's that command huge salaries from driving short term shareholder profits over longer term company health. This will not last forever.
- The value of employees and their loyalty, happiness and ideas cannot be undermined. Companies must realize and that without engaged employees the ‘possibility’ of failure is in fact more of a ‘probability’ of failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)