April 26, 2013
A500.5.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Take some time to reflect on the current state of your critical thinking competencies. Consider your thinking processes when you started the course. Have they changed at all? Have you been able to internalize any of the techniques and concepts you have learned? What will it take to make lasting, positive changes in the way you think?
When I started this course, I believe I started as a well organized, somewhat intelligent person (at least in academic grades if not in real life), who did and has thought through things well in the past. However, this course has taught me something so far about critical thinking, and changed the way that I view it. My thinking process used to have two parts - the first was to carefully consider the content of the thought and the options available if that thought was followed through on. I used to consider all the alternative ways that the thought may be accomplished and the consequences that each may have on my life and those around me. The second thing I would then do is try to imagine all the reasons that I shouldn't be doing whatever it was that I was thinking about. Why shouldn't I stay in the UK?, why do I need 15 chickens on my property?, do I really need to apply for another position? etc.
Of course these thoughts did not always take days to complete, nor did I always write down the results of my thinking, but on occasion (like the decision to emigrate) this became very important - writing out a pro's and con's list so that we could visualise exactly what was at stake when we emigrated was something we just had to do. When I started the course, the same principles to my thinking were in place; question the obvious, rely on good judgement and advice from those in the know, believe in yourself.
I guess what has changed is that now I have a name for it - Critical Thinking. Not only that, but the way in which I think about the things I am thinking about has also grown, so that now I understand that there are not only a few different parts to the process, there are many and they are all interlinked and interdependent at the same time. It's not just the 5 w's - What, Where, When, Who and How?, its also assumptions, points of view and concepts.
One of the things that I never did very well in all my thinking was the consideration of assumptions, and recognizing that we all start with some assumptions is vital to a better type of critical thinking. This has been especially important since moving to a different country and culture - as it is important to put the people around me and my own assumptions in the larger context of where we both grew up and our different cultural backgrounds.
The realization of the important role that assumptions make is one of the major concepts that I have learned, and started to internalize and use on a daily basis with critical thinking. Just this week I was having a conversation with somebody about gun control. This can be a very strange subject to talk about with a person who has been bought up in England - where for all intensive purposes, there are no guns. English people have not grown up in a gun culture, nor have we had to deal with any mass shootings, since the last of the guns in the UK public's hands were removed after the Dunblane massacre in a scottish primary school 17 plus years ago. So when a anti-gun legislation protagonist asks what I think about gun control, there are immediately two assumptions. First, from the American's point of view, he assumes that I have been around as many guns as he has, and that guns may well have been a fact of my life. Secondly, I'm assuming that he must know that banning army style assault weapons makes sense - especially if there are no hunters or legitimate users of AR-15's opposing such a ban. We both assume that our cultures are alike.
It makes for a very interesting argument as he tries to see my point of view (which is not one that sees a reason for upholding the 2nd amendment above the lives of small children) and I try to fathom why anyone can reasonably argue that without assault weapons in every home, certain parts of this country would be open to invasion. Yet no matter how much you understand these assumptions, both must see that they exist for some semblance of a decent conclusion to come into being.
Our argument then got me critically thinking about gun control - especially from the point of view of the lawmakers - who are all american citizens with backgrounds in a gun culture. It also throws a new light on the Piers Morgan interviews on CNN about gun control. Here an Englishman like myself, attempts to impose his own views on guns in society onto a nation where guns just are part of society, and when that fails, the reasoned arguments turn to insults and name calling from both sides.
I believe to make lasting, positive changes to the way I think, I will have to continue to explore the methodology behind critical thinking, and not get lazy and use the circle of 8 elements more in everyday life. I think I learn best through repetition sometimes, and ingraining this way of thinking into a continual habit will improve all the decisions I make on a daily basis - at home and definitely in my career.
April 24, 2013
A633.5.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Create a reflection blog on what this exercise meant to you and how it impacts your understanding of chaos theory, include the implications that this has on strategy.
I got to tell you how much I love this exercise! I just want to take this back to Merck and use it straight away, and start right at the top, mingling the top executives with some of those people from the lower echelons! I would be fascinated to see how long each of those people decides before they start how long this process is going to take, especially because it will give great insight into their own understandings of chaos theory, and leadership at the same time. I say both, because it is everyone's natural reaction to believe that without some sort of organization behind it, getting yourself equidistant between two people that are constantly moving, sounds like it would just take forever. I thought it myself. And before I watched the video and read the description in Obolensky, I also thought that this could get accomplished quicker with someone in charge.
I wonder how many of the top executives at Merck having completed the exercise will still believe that they too, put in charge, could obtain a similar result in a similar time. I believe that some may even have thought it impossible they could let go during the game and allow the others to sort things out for themselves.
I would then like to repeat the process over with every manager and his direct reports all doing the exercise together. I think what this exercise really meant to me is that it is a practical demonstration that not everyone needs leading, and indeed, even those of us who prefer the oligarchic style, can adapt well to a self managed polyarchy - if only for brief periods at a time.
My understanding of chaos theory is also greatly enhanced by the practical demonstration, and especially from the viewpoint that although things may look chaotic initially, or even sound like a terrible idea from the outset before even making an attempt - if you resist the urge to interrupt and intervene, people will be able to solve even the most complex of things - and do it successfully in a shorter period of time.
So naturally, if we can convince the principles at Merck of the relevance of chaos theory in a marketplace and a workplace, and then demonstrate it in this way so that they too become true believers (like using this exercise), maybe we would stand a chance of them taking more fully on board the ideas behind a polyarchy, and slowly taking bigger steps towards achieving it. Of course there is going to be an effect on strategy. It may be that the executive members all breathe a sigh of relief, as the pressure on them knowing all the answers is finally taken off like a small pinprick in a balloon. It may also be that those in the lower echelons feel relieved that at last, they can suggest, innovate, step up and become a good follower without the fear of reprisals or being made to feel foolish. Encouraging this sort of behavior is good for Merck.
In the main Merck's strategy towards its employees is what will have to change at first. Mercks oligarchy has some systems in place already - annual performance appraisal, oligarchic type bands and levels (the new buzz word for 'rank'), and the ability to pay for the education of its staff. All these just need to be utilized more effectively towards Mercks already established purposes and character traits of leadership. They are also going to have to get rid of the shareholder value purpose that is nailed to every wall in the place. I think we are all clever enough to understand that you have to keep the shareholders and the customers happy.
There is an old joke that goes says that the difference between a pilot and the engine on his plane is that when you shut down the engine it stops whining. I guess that means that pilots like to whine - but few if any people at Merck have ever stopped to ask why. It may be that they think that the whining character trait is something the FAA require in FAR 91.175, and that without it you are not getting to be a pilot. It may be that the very same people look at the job we do (which to them involves not much more than driving a technology riddled car) and the amount of time we spend in the office (3 day weeks are common), the amount of physical labor we do (many pilots are out of shape) and then consider the perks (you get to travel the world, you are at home in your own bed every night) and the compensation - and just decide that frankly, pilots should shut the hell up.
But in a fully engaged workforce, all personnel are working towards the common goals and purposes of the company, not just paying them lip service. If the problems that exist are not with the pilots, but say with the mechanics; isn't it better to have all the pilots working with others to solve those problems? Only by changing the strategy from rulers to a true polyarchy is that going to happen.
After this strategy is on its way to being changed, Merck may well find that sales, marketing and all sorts of other strategies start to change, as the benefits of having 30,000 people per country of operation all looking at the problems starts to materialize.
I got to tell you how much I love this exercise! I just want to take this back to Merck and use it straight away, and start right at the top, mingling the top executives with some of those people from the lower echelons! I would be fascinated to see how long each of those people decides before they start how long this process is going to take, especially because it will give great insight into their own understandings of chaos theory, and leadership at the same time. I say both, because it is everyone's natural reaction to believe that without some sort of organization behind it, getting yourself equidistant between two people that are constantly moving, sounds like it would just take forever. I thought it myself. And before I watched the video and read the description in Obolensky, I also thought that this could get accomplished quicker with someone in charge.
I wonder how many of the top executives at Merck having completed the exercise will still believe that they too, put in charge, could obtain a similar result in a similar time. I believe that some may even have thought it impossible they could let go during the game and allow the others to sort things out for themselves.
I would then like to repeat the process over with every manager and his direct reports all doing the exercise together. I think what this exercise really meant to me is that it is a practical demonstration that not everyone needs leading, and indeed, even those of us who prefer the oligarchic style, can adapt well to a self managed polyarchy - if only for brief periods at a time.
My understanding of chaos theory is also greatly enhanced by the practical demonstration, and especially from the viewpoint that although things may look chaotic initially, or even sound like a terrible idea from the outset before even making an attempt - if you resist the urge to interrupt and intervene, people will be able to solve even the most complex of things - and do it successfully in a shorter period of time.
So naturally, if we can convince the principles at Merck of the relevance of chaos theory in a marketplace and a workplace, and then demonstrate it in this way so that they too become true believers (like using this exercise), maybe we would stand a chance of them taking more fully on board the ideas behind a polyarchy, and slowly taking bigger steps towards achieving it. Of course there is going to be an effect on strategy. It may be that the executive members all breathe a sigh of relief, as the pressure on them knowing all the answers is finally taken off like a small pinprick in a balloon. It may also be that those in the lower echelons feel relieved that at last, they can suggest, innovate, step up and become a good follower without the fear of reprisals or being made to feel foolish. Encouraging this sort of behavior is good for Merck.
In the main Merck's strategy towards its employees is what will have to change at first. Mercks oligarchy has some systems in place already - annual performance appraisal, oligarchic type bands and levels (the new buzz word for 'rank'), and the ability to pay for the education of its staff. All these just need to be utilized more effectively towards Mercks already established purposes and character traits of leadership. They are also going to have to get rid of the shareholder value purpose that is nailed to every wall in the place. I think we are all clever enough to understand that you have to keep the shareholders and the customers happy.
There is an old joke that goes says that the difference between a pilot and the engine on his plane is that when you shut down the engine it stops whining. I guess that means that pilots like to whine - but few if any people at Merck have ever stopped to ask why. It may be that they think that the whining character trait is something the FAA require in FAR 91.175, and that without it you are not getting to be a pilot. It may be that the very same people look at the job we do (which to them involves not much more than driving a technology riddled car) and the amount of time we spend in the office (3 day weeks are common), the amount of physical labor we do (many pilots are out of shape) and then consider the perks (you get to travel the world, you are at home in your own bed every night) and the compensation - and just decide that frankly, pilots should shut the hell up.
But in a fully engaged workforce, all personnel are working towards the common goals and purposes of the company, not just paying them lip service. If the problems that exist are not with the pilots, but say with the mechanics; isn't it better to have all the pilots working with others to solve those problems? Only by changing the strategy from rulers to a true polyarchy is that going to happen.
After this strategy is on its way to being changed, Merck may well find that sales, marketing and all sorts of other strategies start to change, as the benefits of having 30,000 people per country of operation all looking at the problems starts to materialize.
April 19, 2013
A500.4.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
View the TED video by Sheena Iyengar on the art of choosing. Dr. Iyengar assumes that Americans believe the following when it comes to making choices:
- Make your own choices,
- More options leads to better choices, and
- Never say no to choice.
Reflect on these assumptions in your Leadership blog. Do you agree with Dr. Iyengar? What is the implication of her comments on leadership?
It has been said that life is the sum of your choices. And yet it seems that as the modern era progresses, the choices just keep multiplying. This means then, that as life goes on, the sum just gets harder and harder. In the Sheena Lyengar video, we learn that in America, the choices are numerous indeed, but that in many cases the choice is an artificial one. This is best demonstrated by the pink nail polish, and also the taste of Coke. When two pink nail polishes have no label, about 50% of the people asked could not determine a difference between the two. In the matter of Coke vs. Pepsi, the two companies would have you believe that each is vastly different from the other - Pepsi even going so far as to claim it is the 'choice of a new generation'. And yet in reality, few people can tell the difference between the two.
So it seems that choices in many cases are artificial, and they are only important if you believe that they are. And yet, there are three assumptions above that need to be addressed regarding choice. Firstly, that you must make your own choice. This is interesting, because clearly this is a cultural matter, and having grown up in a different culture to most Americans, I can relate somewhat here. Choice is something that is very important to Americans - and maybe this stems from the founding fathers who chose to move away from the UK and start up on there own in a 'new world'. There are many brands of the same thing, many companies that essentially offer health coverage to choose from, many different product choices, and choices on how to live your life based on the fact that in the US we are free to choose to do anything.
In other cultures this is not the case. Women in the Middle East cannot choose to drive a car for example. Not only is it against the law, but the freedom in this matter does not exist for them to make that choice - even if it was one that they wanted to choose and had a car available. In the UK there are no choices in healthcare. The choice you have is weather to go privately for your healthcare and pay for it, or weather to use the National Health Service - a government run healthcare system. The doctors there have all the same choices as those in the US, the patient does not. In the National Health Service, you don't get to pick your doctor, one is assigned to you, usually based on closeness to your residence. You cannot pick the medicine the doctor prescribes, nor can you choose one hospital over the other. The system itself removes those choices and aims to keep all facilities, all doctors and all drugs standardized in such a way that ideally the only choice would be one between two nearly identical things. But the people of the UK do not riot in the streets because they cannot choose a doctor, nor do they complain about one hospital over the other for the most part. So either the standardization has worked so well that choice seems pointless, or the British Culture has effectively bred out of it's people the need to see healthcare choice as important. So one has to conclude that you don't have to make your own choices to be happy about it. Sheena Lyengar also gave an example of Asian children who prefer to have their mothers make the choice, and yet American children are actively encouraged to make their own choices from an early age.
This brings us nicely to the assumption that limitless options will bring out better choices. What struck me about this statement is that actually the reverse is probably more true, yet much depends on the individual's personality traits. In other words, given very few choices, people can often make very poor choices, and given many, many choices, people can succumb to greed and apathy. I'll give two examples.
In World War Two, the Jewish, Romany and Polish people of Europe were basically given two choices. Succumb to German rule, identify yourself and allow us to decide your destiny - or get arrested now and more than likely never be seen again. Not a great choice, but there was a third; not to choose either of the first two choices. Unfortunately, the majority of those people took the first choice, one which ultimately turned into a bad choice. And although there is an argument that relies on the fact that these people could not possibly have known what the Germans were up to until it was too late, they must have had at least some inkling that things were not quite right just in the way they were being reduced to third class citizens pre war. I believe that many more felt they had no choice at all.
The unlimited choice factor that leads to greed can also be true. Given enough money, people become obsessed with material goods and apathetic towards the plight of those who are not so lucky. Although there is always an exception or many exceptions to both these cases, it cannot be proven that more options lead to better choices. Money gives someone many choices, and yet Lottery winners often express their sadness at winning the lottery some time after the event as their choices turn out to be poor ones; William Hurt’s life turned upside down after he won the $3.1 million jackpot in Michigan’s 1993 Lottery. It only took 2 years for Hurt to relapse into a cocaine addiction, literally blowing through his earnings. Dr. Lyengar's own experiment with choice in Russia showed the artificialness of the choices of soda.
The third question is a little harder to answer definitively. Never say no to choice. Again I have been brought up to believe that having a choice is better than no choice, and so I tend to agree with this statement at least. I am sure that somewhere there are people perfectly happy to have no choices, and have someone or something make all their choices for them (after all, the magic 8-ball was a successful seller) - but I am not one of those people.
The implications for leadership are many and varied. Leaders have to make choices all the time about the business they are in, the charity that they run or even the people that they lead. Choices may often be difficult, sometimes these choices may be not very good choices to pick from at all - a 'Hobson's Choice' if you will. Even when you have a choice, but you never make it; that in itself was a choice. The implication for leaders though is that their choices don't just affect themselves.
There are countless people relying on the fact that the leader will always make the right choice. The problem is that choices are stories that can be told in a very many different ways. We have much more to gain from knowing what a choice does and what a choice represents or by looking at a choice from a different perspective than from making the choice itself. But leaders are constantly faced with more and more choices, just as we are in our everyday lives, and because those choices may well be artificial ones, the effect on others can be both devastating and harmful to more than just those directly affected by the choice. Think of a leaders decision to lay off workers to meet the profit expectation of the shareholders. This sort of decision is expected to be made by a CEO, and yet that decision could effect the worker, his immediate family, the local economy, the whole business and the industry that it is in. It could have a negative or positive effect, something that is never known until after the choice has been made.
So in conclusion, I do agree at least with Dr. Lyengar on one thing - that navigating the 'fantasmagoria' of choices is the thing that provides the greatest of learning experiences, not the choices themselves. Personally, I am happy to have a choice, and cannot imagine a life without choices. I don't need 15 million types of the same thing, nor do I need someone to make my choices for me (although I wouldn't fret if someone did), so long as a choice gets made. There is nothing worse than having a choice and then choosing to do nothing for fear of making the wrong choice. As Rita Mae Brown once said: "A peacefulness follows any decision, even the wrong one".
April 16, 2013
A633.4.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Reflecting on the opening exercise at the beginning of Chapter 4 of the of Obolensky text and other readings, why do you think the shift in leadership is occurring and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization. List three reasons that support or refute this position.
If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promote these types of changes? What are the implications on strategy?
There is a need for a shift in leadership style in the Pharmaceutical industry for a more polyarchic approach for one good reason - new innovation in products is hard to come by, it's time consuming and it is expensive. Traditional Leadership roles suggest that the leaders have the answers to these new miracle drugs, as well as all the answers, yet with 60% of the answers to the hard questions in business coming from the bottom this seems not to be the case anymore. Let me explain why that matters.
For many years now Merck has relied on investment in internal R&D to find new products and committing to opening up the old products to new emerging markets in the East. At the same time, as Merck does not find new products that make it to market (nor do the costs of the trails ever go down); Merck finds it necessary to reduce the cost of the workplace by finding cost efficiencies and cutting back on everything from expenses to benefits and even the numbers of people - all in order to satisfy the shareholders.
Although I am not involved in the Research and Development department, I am involved in a department and there are many examples of how a self managing team of a C.A.S style organization would have at least eliminated the need for Merck to cut our benefits or even the number of people working here. I cannot believe that this is not the case in all departments. But I wonder how often the President and Vice President (who I see on a daily basis in the back of my helicopter going to and from the facilities) have taken the time to listen and to get the bottom to come up with the next chemical concoction, or disease that they think they could produce something to help. I'll take a stab in the dark - never.
And it shows. In the last 12 months three products much lauded by the CEO have failed in stage three trials (stage 4 is essentially launch, so the vast amount of budget is spent up to and including stage 3), one product that made it out and went to market was withdrawn because 'further research' indicated that in fact it was no better than a placebo, and finally, the list of upcoming treatments and their various cures that our compounds are working towards in the next 5 years is at best uninspiring, and at worse a copy of all the other Pharmaceutical companies lists. It seems that Merck has no better lead on the next miracle than any other Pharma company out there. And it shows.
When Ken Frazier announced his strategy to invest in internal R&D when all other companies are pursuing the strategy of leaving that to smaller well funded start-ups and then purchasing the ideas, the stock price fell. Merck's major selling drug is off patent this year too, so the need for something new just got greater. Stock price increases are from cost cutting and the emerging markets. Merck continually chases this idea of another Viagra (a Pfizer product) which continually eludes them like a rainbow.
So although it is not currently indicative of my organization there has never been a clearer example of why this need should be seriously addressed. Clearly the bosses don't have the answers. If they just recognized this and started asking for answers from the bottom, and truly, truly listened they may find that at least 60% of the equation could be solved from that end of the totem pole. There follows the three reasons that support why this change is not happening:
1) Staff are concerned. They are not involved in the process, therefore do not feel engaged, are worried for their jobs as they see the blunt end of the 'efficiencies' and so as a self fulfilling prophecy, do not speak up with new ideas that may change the status quo.
2) The middle management ranks grow as the problems increase because the workers are not left to solve the problems that occur from a disenfranchised workforce. Middle management look for answers by demanding respect and a rigid adherence to the company strategy - without any form of consultation from the lower ranks.
3) Teams are non existent. Individuals are assigned jobs to perform in the manner to which they have always been performed. Input from the performer is not required, measured or even evaluated. Personal evaluations are done by middle management and workers are grouped into sections - high middle and low performers. All lower ranks fall into the middle or low performing categories. The path to a higher performer category is impossible, because the tasks required to qualify for that status is either taken and not likely to be given up because it effects another incumbents evaluation or is being performed by management who have no idea that teams could work this out for themselves and take pride in it.
Leadership dynamics have to change drastically to accommodate a new regime at Merck. But no one is saying they have to do it all at once by announcing an immediate cessation of all structure and management - " Please report to work Monday, take off your shoes and sit together on a carpet, in a circle, in your socks and lets bond!"
How about we start by listening at the departmental meetings. Lets have the CEO come down to our small department, and spend an hour with us in the hangar without our immediate superior and his boss, and have a question and answer session where he asks us questions on what we should do next. Let's start by him saying "I don't have all the answers, and I need your help". Lets have a global initiative via computer that rewards those people properly for bravely suggesting to change the way we do things. Lets instigate a real mentor program, where everyone who wants to can easily find a mentor in the company, communicate with them via a cell phone app and daily swap ideas, thoughts and produce results. Let's encourage the leaders of tomorrow by not just paying for their further education, but by inviting them to share what they are learning with other either departmentally or worldwide using a computer driven discussion board or forum. I attended HAI this year in Las Vegas, and went to a one day course on leadership. I found it fascinating, informative and it contained some great insights into the modern way to lead and it cost Merck well over $2500 for the stay, the flights, the food, the course etc. And although I personally benefited - what did Merck get from it for that money? Nothing. I asked too. Shall I do a presentation? Write a report? Suggest ideas that came from the course? No thanks was the reply.
The dynamics of leadership would be irrevocably changed for the better. No longer would there be more layers of management than the princess had pillows between her and the pea. Communication between the very top and the very bottom should be open, honest and beyond reproach. Lets face it, we all love keeping in touch with LinkedIn or Facebook, so why not have a private group for anyone to join and just interchange. I've seen good things come from social media.
The company strategy would evolve from these steps. Instead of strategy leading the product development, let the people in the company lead the strategy. If we continue down the current route, I think we are just chasing dream down an inevitable dead end, unless someone in R&D gets lucky of course.
April 14, 2013
A633.3.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Add your insights from your interview of the company executive responsible for strategy formulation in your company. Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.
There are many implications for me and Merck, particularly in the way I look at Merk and the way in which my company looks at the way that I work. Texas Instruments have changed the way they work and changed from a large scale hierarchy like Merck to a manager free environment. St. Lukes formed itself on this basis and so it was not necessary to change an existing culture, and Morning Star adapted to it's environment in order to survive in a small margin field. Three great examples of how a CAS can work.
So let's start with me. If you look at the way that these companies operate, it is fascinating. Having worked a while at various levels in a corporate environment, I am very used to the hierarchy, working your way up the corporate ladder and also the accompanying office politics. In the companies mentioned above, there is no such ladder. Groups of peers make decisions when they are major, and all other decisions are made by the individual. It's not that I don't think I can make a decision on my own, because I am well used to that. Nor is it the worry that I may have made the wrong decision or that everything I do is being held accountable by a group of my peers; but it is that there is some solace in knowing your function, planning your career and looking out for how to improve to make those things come true. It is the article about St Lukes Advertising agency that says it all - "this is one of the scariest places to work".
As I have been acclimatized to the old way of working, fitting in to a new 'bossless' style would take much effort. I can believe that there are some people that can't do it - but I don't believe I am one of those. There are some things that in any office environment you have because they make you feel comfortable. Things like the cubicle, the family pictures, the stack of pens - your pens, in that plastic tube like holder on your desk. What some of these new companies are asking is that you throw those comforters out, I suspect much like trying to wrestle a binky from a 3 year old child. Now when I wanted to get my child to give up her binky, I didn't do it by snatching it away and throwing it in the trash in front of her. I was much more subtle. I made a cut in the rubber end of the binky with scissors one night when she was asleep and when she got up she realized it was broken. "Oh dear!" I exclaimed in the morning, "I guess you should throw it away then?" And she did. And we never heard about her binky again.
I guess because it was her decision to make she was comfortable with it, and she made the transition willingly and without much fuss. The mere thought of spending a day without one was just unthinkable 12 hours previous. I can't help thinking as I read the Luke's article that they are forcing the binky away for the sake of creativity, rather than having peer pressure do it or letting the odd man out in the office find his way to abandoning the old habits.
As I said, I would have much to learn about a bossless office, and a lot of adjustment too; I cannot fathom how much more adjustment a company would have to make.
Incumbent companies like the global behemoth that I work for (Merck) must cringe at the very thought of no bosses. Can a truly global leader in the Pharmaceutical industry turn an over organized company with multiple layers of management into a bossless culture? I can see the shareholder's yelling "Sell!, Sell!" now. However this is not because I don't believe that even a company like Merck cannot do it; I just think they are going to pick small chunks, adapt them to their needs and then push those gently forward - slowly.
Unfortunately, some of Merck is held in the grip of Unions. Unions have bosses, and they don't like being told that there is no order to things. Union bosses want to keep their positions of power probably more than the individual executive board members at Merck. After all, if peers could look after themselves, why were Unions needed in the first place?
Then there are the multiple layers of management in the hierarchy already. I'm a pilot, I have a Chief Pilot I report to. She reports to the Director of Aviation, who reports to the Director of Facilities Management, who reports to the financial Senior Vice President, who reports to the Finance president, who reports to the CEO and Board of Directors. So between me and the CEO there are at least 4 layers of middle management that could be done away with. And that is pretty much the same all over the company for every job. I guess at least the savings in wages would be huge! I like the idea that Texas Instruments had regarding "pushing responsibility to the lowest levels"
However, Merck is beholding to the shareholders, and shareholders are in it for the dividends. Shareholders don't really give that much notice to the internal workings of the firm, unless it effects the stock price. I'm sure they wouldn't care if a few layers of management were shed, but they would care if the transition from order to a CAS meant that their checks didn't come through.
That I believe is why Merck takes the easy route - small working groups with a goal to find efficiencies or cost savings, or a blog about the latest strategy microcosm. A Merck "transformation Jam" which was launched recently asked for all employees to suggest ways to improve Merck's working practices via an online discussion board - but when the results were published of this 3 month long extravaganza, you could almost here the groans and sighs as more of the same with tiny changes didn't do anything to transform our lives or work at all.
I believe it is imperative though that Merck gets on board in a serious way with finding new working practices. Even if this comes by drastically redesigning the way management is structured; organizing it so that the Vice Presidents and senior executives are much more in touch with the lower echelons, this would be a great improvement for Merck. They could quite easily take a leaf out of Texas Instruments book, which started with it's own Transformation Jam in the form of 'circles' and then moved it forward to where it is today - " Increased productivity, increased profits and decreased organizational bureaucracy".
The future I think of working practices is changing day by day, and Merck needs to keep up with those changes as it struggles to find innovation which is the mainstay of Merck's current strategy and therefore it's share price. I believe that one appropriate action is management restructuring, a second would be a system of internet based discussion for all employees, where ideas for innovation, economies or efficiencies can be talked about and spread around. Move this forward to self managing teams and then restructuring can begin. Merck is worldwide, and so therefore are it's cultures, its different types of workforce and it's managers. Who says we have nothing to learn in the US from an Eastern style culture? Is there anyone out there that doesn't think that someone elsewhere in the world doesn't have a different way to book aircraft time and therefore improve the number of dead head flights? Cannot the aviation department learn anything from manufacturing or the Fleet departments?
What is clear is that both Merck and myself are going to have to change the way we work to push innovation forward, and at this moment, neither of us are really trying very hard.
Additional reference:
Bosses not instrumental at texas instruments. (1995). The Journal of Management Development, 14(9), 29-29. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/216297934?accountid=27203
There are many implications for me and Merck, particularly in the way I look at Merk and the way in which my company looks at the way that I work. Texas Instruments have changed the way they work and changed from a large scale hierarchy like Merck to a manager free environment. St. Lukes formed itself on this basis and so it was not necessary to change an existing culture, and Morning Star adapted to it's environment in order to survive in a small margin field. Three great examples of how a CAS can work.
So let's start with me. If you look at the way that these companies operate, it is fascinating. Having worked a while at various levels in a corporate environment, I am very used to the hierarchy, working your way up the corporate ladder and also the accompanying office politics. In the companies mentioned above, there is no such ladder. Groups of peers make decisions when they are major, and all other decisions are made by the individual. It's not that I don't think I can make a decision on my own, because I am well used to that. Nor is it the worry that I may have made the wrong decision or that everything I do is being held accountable by a group of my peers; but it is that there is some solace in knowing your function, planning your career and looking out for how to improve to make those things come true. It is the article about St Lukes Advertising agency that says it all - "this is one of the scariest places to work".
As I have been acclimatized to the old way of working, fitting in to a new 'bossless' style would take much effort. I can believe that there are some people that can't do it - but I don't believe I am one of those. There are some things that in any office environment you have because they make you feel comfortable. Things like the cubicle, the family pictures, the stack of pens - your pens, in that plastic tube like holder on your desk. What some of these new companies are asking is that you throw those comforters out, I suspect much like trying to wrestle a binky from a 3 year old child. Now when I wanted to get my child to give up her binky, I didn't do it by snatching it away and throwing it in the trash in front of her. I was much more subtle. I made a cut in the rubber end of the binky with scissors one night when she was asleep and when she got up she realized it was broken. "Oh dear!" I exclaimed in the morning, "I guess you should throw it away then?" And she did. And we never heard about her binky again.
I guess because it was her decision to make she was comfortable with it, and she made the transition willingly and without much fuss. The mere thought of spending a day without one was just unthinkable 12 hours previous. I can't help thinking as I read the Luke's article that they are forcing the binky away for the sake of creativity, rather than having peer pressure do it or letting the odd man out in the office find his way to abandoning the old habits.
As I said, I would have much to learn about a bossless office, and a lot of adjustment too; I cannot fathom how much more adjustment a company would have to make.
Incumbent companies like the global behemoth that I work for (Merck) must cringe at the very thought of no bosses. Can a truly global leader in the Pharmaceutical industry turn an over organized company with multiple layers of management into a bossless culture? I can see the shareholder's yelling "Sell!, Sell!" now. However this is not because I don't believe that even a company like Merck cannot do it; I just think they are going to pick small chunks, adapt them to their needs and then push those gently forward - slowly.
Unfortunately, some of Merck is held in the grip of Unions. Unions have bosses, and they don't like being told that there is no order to things. Union bosses want to keep their positions of power probably more than the individual executive board members at Merck. After all, if peers could look after themselves, why were Unions needed in the first place?
Then there are the multiple layers of management in the hierarchy already. I'm a pilot, I have a Chief Pilot I report to. She reports to the Director of Aviation, who reports to the Director of Facilities Management, who reports to the financial Senior Vice President, who reports to the Finance president, who reports to the CEO and Board of Directors. So between me and the CEO there are at least 4 layers of middle management that could be done away with. And that is pretty much the same all over the company for every job. I guess at least the savings in wages would be huge! I like the idea that Texas Instruments had regarding "pushing responsibility to the lowest levels"
However, Merck is beholding to the shareholders, and shareholders are in it for the dividends. Shareholders don't really give that much notice to the internal workings of the firm, unless it effects the stock price. I'm sure they wouldn't care if a few layers of management were shed, but they would care if the transition from order to a CAS meant that their checks didn't come through.
That I believe is why Merck takes the easy route - small working groups with a goal to find efficiencies or cost savings, or a blog about the latest strategy microcosm. A Merck "transformation Jam" which was launched recently asked for all employees to suggest ways to improve Merck's working practices via an online discussion board - but when the results were published of this 3 month long extravaganza, you could almost here the groans and sighs as more of the same with tiny changes didn't do anything to transform our lives or work at all.
I believe it is imperative though that Merck gets on board in a serious way with finding new working practices. Even if this comes by drastically redesigning the way management is structured; organizing it so that the Vice Presidents and senior executives are much more in touch with the lower echelons, this would be a great improvement for Merck. They could quite easily take a leaf out of Texas Instruments book, which started with it's own Transformation Jam in the form of 'circles' and then moved it forward to where it is today - " Increased productivity, increased profits and decreased organizational bureaucracy".
The future I think of working practices is changing day by day, and Merck needs to keep up with those changes as it struggles to find innovation which is the mainstay of Merck's current strategy and therefore it's share price. I believe that one appropriate action is management restructuring, a second would be a system of internet based discussion for all employees, where ideas for innovation, economies or efficiencies can be talked about and spread around. Move this forward to self managing teams and then restructuring can begin. Merck is worldwide, and so therefore are it's cultures, its different types of workforce and it's managers. Who says we have nothing to learn in the US from an Eastern style culture? Is there anyone out there that doesn't think that someone elsewhere in the world doesn't have a different way to book aircraft time and therefore improve the number of dead head flights? Cannot the aviation department learn anything from manufacturing or the Fleet departments?
What is clear is that both Merck and myself are going to have to change the way we work to push innovation forward, and at this moment, neither of us are really trying very hard.
Additional reference:
Bosses not instrumental at texas instruments. (1995). The Journal of Management Development, 14(9), 29-29. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/216297934?accountid=27203
April 10, 2013
A500.3.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
As you explore the Hunt Library, reflect on how you might use the Library as a resource for your studies.
How is the scholarly information you found in the library different from the typical information you find when you Google a leadership concept?
Libraries have always been a part of my life from a very young age. I was always encouraged to go to the library and pick up books, we had summer activities I attended at my library and I owned a library card before most children in my class even knew you could have one - and boy, did I ever feel grown up with my own library card.
Of course, in the 70's and in the UK, libraries were places of books. If you wanted to find one you either asked someone who worked there or you fingered through a million index cards categorized by subject and Dewey decimal number. Libraries were not only for research, they were places of wonder - safe havens free from adults if you wanted and a source of endless fascinating microfiche's and old local newspapers. I remember spending one summer reading every edition of "The Bucks Herald" - our local newspaper that had a story about the Great Train Robbery - something that took place not far from our house. (The Great Train Robbery Story.)
I cannot see the Hunt library being very different at all. Of course, there is going to be an inevitable focus on research for coursework, but the Hunt library, just like any other is a source of leisure books, DVDs and anything else that I may want from a regular library. The major advantage now though is that I won't be getting paper cuts on an index card system! Modern technology has made it so that I can search a phrase or maybe just the style of book and come up with a result. Even better is the "most requested" feature - pointing you in the direction of the article or book most referenced or read. And of course, I can do this from wherever I have to be, at any time of the day. Unrestricted by the building and the fall of night, Hunt Library stays open to read 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's comforting to know that as my kids demand yet another hike at the weekend, I won't miss the resource I'm looking for because the doors were locked at 5pm Friday!
I think that scholarly information gathered from the hunt library differs from that found through any internet search mainly in the ease of the quality information I can find. Typing' "the great train robbery" into Google will produce a myriad of links to all things from the IMBD review of a movie of the same name, to reports from the BBC and wikipedia links. Of the 8,670,000 results returned, who scans documents past the first few pages of results. I don't think I know anyone who makes it off the first page more than twice a month. And so just for fun I looked at the 75th page of returns on Google and found that the links included some obscure reference to what looked like a "friends Reunited" web page for train robbers, a story of Bruce Reynolds dying aged 81 and several websites dedicated to books about the Great Train Robbery. Nothing really relevant here, but lots of things that if I had no idea what it was, could easily lead me down the garden path.
In contrast the Hunt Library squeals "relevant". Not just relevant as in up-to-date, but relevant to my education, relevant to today and relevant to my course. Just like walking into the county library and reading the Bucks Herald, Hunt Library provides me with the pertinent information when and where I want it, without a great search for relevant information among 18 million others.
Finally, and most importantly; Google is based on the 'not-so-secret' algorithm. If I want my commemorative mug of the Great Train Robbery to appear on the first page near the top I just need to master the algorithm as much as I can and start to bump much more relevant information towards page 75. And I wouldn't be the only mug seller doing it. As google is essentially open to the public, all number of people can skew the results any search engine gives you. The Hunt Library meanwhile stays the steady ship in an ill research wind. Providing me with my own data bank, research inventory, media service, DVD and video collection at any time of day, Hunt Library is it's own best advertisement. However, I'm still going to miss those "old fashioned" membership cards that I could wave dramatically in front of my friends and the odd "shhh!" from the librarian.
April 5, 2013
A500.2.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Answer the questions posed in question number 1 from the Tell Your Story area on page 162 of Learning to Think Things Through.
What are some standards that are most important in your life?
How did you acquire those standards?
How have they changed over the years?
How have they changed over the years?
I'm going to focus on two standards in my life, Honesty and Professionalism. Both of these standards have not so much changed over time, but definitely grown over time.
Honesty is something that as child, one doesn't really get. To avoid a scolding from their parents a child will almost automatically lie. Even when a child knows there are no bad consequences for him or her, often a lie comes forth to avoid embarrassment, or because at a young age one cannot determine the importance of honesty. I was probably no different from all those children; in fact I know I was not. I also grew up in a large family, where competition was rife, so it was always a challenge to stay completely honest. I wasn't stealing or robbing banks, but I may have tripped my brother on the family picnic race or poured salt in the dining room ornaments. I guess what changed that, is the realisation that honesty was important; not just to me but to those people around me, in particular my friends.
There is nothing worse than getting caught out in a lie, especially when you know it is going to happen. The adage that it gets harder to keep up with all the lies is perfectly true. Trust is something that is built up over long periods of time, and yet can be destroyed in mere seconds. As you get older and time passes, what holds you ever closer to the feeling that friends are the family that you can choose is the bond of trust. I have heard it said that family are the only ones that you can truly trust, yet I am not sure that this is actually true. Families have their own agendas too, and in a family like mine where competition was always very fierce, family became more of the people I wanted to avoid as I grew older, not the people I should trust completely. I consider myself to be lucky though. Amoung my many friends I have a two that I can trust completely, and I believe that that is probably one or two more than most people.
Being honest with somebody also sets you free. Take my wife. While being completely honest in our relationship is important to her, I think that being honest to me is absolutely vital - not because I would surely lose her if I was not, but because I have a deep sense of pride in the fact that I have, and will always be, honest with her. It's like a badge of pride that I can wear, something nobody else can see but me, but with which gives me confidence that I will always have her at my side and that makes me feel confident about a whole host of other things too.
As a child, this concept would never have crossed my mind. Honesty was something that may well have suited the moment, or useful when I needed sympathy or perhaps the credit for being honest. However, when I grew up there were always consequences to not being honest, and sometimes consequences if you were but were not believed. If you told the truth and you were naughty, you were punished, if you told a lie and you got away with it, you were not; however the threat of punishment was always underlying so it sort of encouraged you not to be honest in the first place. Counterproductive to say the very least. So I can't say that I acquired these traits from my parents, but what I did acquire from them was the need to have something in adulthood that I could hold on to, and that manifested itself as honesty. Today, it is so important I tell my own children that nothing else matters. Unless the life of someone you care for is in real and imminent danger, honesty is paramount. There is never any implied punishment if they tell the truth, and if the truth is told, even if the outcome was bad from their actions, they are praised for being honest in the first place and maybe lectured later about not doing said action again after they have disassociated it from the moment of praise. I think the association with the concept that honesty is good is more important initially.
On the other side of the coin is professionalism, something that I can say I definitely got from my parents. My father was a business owner, he had his own motor engineering business, and my mother worked as a bilingual secretary, travelling to foreign climes to do her work in her youth before she became a full time mum. My dad was always very professional. He didn't cut corners, he always did what was right by the customer, he never involved himself in anything that wasn't 100% straight and legal, and it showed in his customer base. People like to frequent businesses where they don't think they are getting ripped off, are treated with respect, are treated like they are intelligent people who happen not to know much about cars, and get charged for those services accordingly; not by how much the business thinks it can get away with.
In my own career it is important to be professional for a variety of reasons, not least because I work (and have worked) for some very influential and important people, but because of safety concerns and also image in a very small community of helicopter pilots.
Lets take the last point first and work our way backwards. I always wanted to be a corporate helicopter pilot, one of the requirements for such job is that you are professional. This is hard to prove, but reputation, the way you conduct yourself, the way you speak about yourself and others and even the way you dress every day all speak volumes about your professionalism. Without it, I would not be where I am today. In the past, before I worked seriously at a career, professionalism was not at the top of the list, it was other things like money and finding the best opportunity to make the most of it. I think age is what places professionalism into the limelight, as again, no one likes to think of themselves as unprofessional.
Safety while flying is also important, and almost from the first lesson you ever take in a helicopter, the "being professional" mantra is drummed into you. If you mess around and don't treat your duties properly, you exponentially increase your risk of death. As a flight instructor I wanted professional students. Those who were not, didn't get to be my students; I handed them off to someone else. I believe if you couldn't be serious as a student, you were hardly likely to be serious as a pilot, and I wasn't prepared to have them on an accident report because I had not instilled some sense of professionalism into them. As my career progressed, being professional, especially when you know that it is hard to be mattered even more. Flying is a small world, flying helicopters is smaller still, and flying corporate helicopters even smaller than that. Everyone knows everyone else, and everyone knows who the clowns are, who is scruffy, who is unhygienic, who slags off the clients or co-workers when they are not there and who constantly tells you how bad their company is in public. None of these things mark you out as a professional.
I guess I got got lucky - I was born into a family where at least professionalism was something that I picked up just from admiring the way my Mum and Dad went about being it every day.
In my own career it is important to be professional for a variety of reasons, not least because I work (and have worked) for some very influential and important people, but because of safety concerns and also image in a very small community of helicopter pilots.
Lets take the last point first and work our way backwards. I always wanted to be a corporate helicopter pilot, one of the requirements for such job is that you are professional. This is hard to prove, but reputation, the way you conduct yourself, the way you speak about yourself and others and even the way you dress every day all speak volumes about your professionalism. Without it, I would not be where I am today. In the past, before I worked seriously at a career, professionalism was not at the top of the list, it was other things like money and finding the best opportunity to make the most of it. I think age is what places professionalism into the limelight, as again, no one likes to think of themselves as unprofessional.
Safety while flying is also important, and almost from the first lesson you ever take in a helicopter, the "being professional" mantra is drummed into you. If you mess around and don't treat your duties properly, you exponentially increase your risk of death. As a flight instructor I wanted professional students. Those who were not, didn't get to be my students; I handed them off to someone else. I believe if you couldn't be serious as a student, you were hardly likely to be serious as a pilot, and I wasn't prepared to have them on an accident report because I had not instilled some sense of professionalism into them. As my career progressed, being professional, especially when you know that it is hard to be mattered even more. Flying is a small world, flying helicopters is smaller still, and flying corporate helicopters even smaller than that. Everyone knows everyone else, and everyone knows who the clowns are, who is scruffy, who is unhygienic, who slags off the clients or co-workers when they are not there and who constantly tells you how bad their company is in public. None of these things mark you out as a professional.
I guess I got got lucky - I was born into a family where at least professionalism was something that I picked up just from admiring the way my Mum and Dad went about being it every day.
April 2, 2013
A633.2.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (p.58).
Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization.
What are the implication of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.
The Butterfly Effect: "within complex organizations, small changes can yield large results" (Obolensky, 2010). This theory was first put forward by Edward Lorenz in the 60's - he was making a point using a weather simulator, that essentially showed that by changing the most insignificant amount of temperature can lead to a much bigger result further down the chain, and that also this change may not produce the same result each time the simulation happened.
Complexity Science and Theory in Organizations is interlinked to this theory. As the butterfly effect is an example of how a seemingly unpredictable response actually has an underlying pattern. There are many examples of these small changes - the Post-It note being the one that really sticks in the mind (pun intended!), came about because 3M allowed it's workers to have 15% of their time at work to do anything they wanted with company equipment. Someone there invented the Post-It!
So now the question is identifying small changes that yielded large results in my organization.
Both examples come from my time at Pickford's. First, the company had a very old office building, built sometime in the 50's, when individual offices were important, and secretaries were really the only people who sat together. The TV program 'Mad Men' had an office that reminded me of something like what we had at Pickford's. Someone then decided that these offices would be removed, and replaced with an open plan style office. I am not sure weather this was a deliberate adoption of Bifurction Theory, or whether this was purely a trend of the times thing, but you would have thought that the world was going to end! Those who had an office suddenly felt that all their power was drained away because nobody had to knock on a door to see them anymore. Yet more people thought the area would just be too noisy with everyone occupying the space, but what happened in fact was just the opposite. If people were not talking to each other more, they were overhearing the way others dealt with customer complaints or sold a particular packing service. Soon, best practices started to emerge and you could see how everyone was learning more from each other.
In addition, employees were encouraged to pin things to the cubicle wall and dress up the cubicle to make them feel at home. This was done, and again the employees seemed very happy that each of them had their own space, not just the few with an office. What really was remarkable though was the feeling of team spirit that started to emerge. Gone was the 'us and them' attitude, and as each person started subconsciously copying others, each felt that they were closer as a team and more enabled to work together and solve problems collectively. I'm not sure they could all put their finger on why this was happening. Even the grumblers (those that actually lost the office space) benefitted from having their team run smoother. Less complaints were escalated and each person found it easier to work out problems with the help of the person "over the wall" in the next cubicle. Of course, sometimes it really did get too loud in there!
A second example was in the negative at Pickford's. Pickford's for some reason always had free coffee or drinks for staff. It was from a vending machine (the type that relies on a number to get what you want), so that each employee would dring a 93, or a 106 etc. so the tea and coffee wasn't that great, but everyone could have as much as they wanted. It never seemed like a big deal.
Then One morning we came to work and unbeknown to em or the staff, head office had sent in for a new coffee machine - and this one - despite the numerous more choices, charged 20p a cup! The quality of the tea and coffee was much better. It even came with lovely little plastic cup holder things and allowed you to put your own mug underneath to get the coffee. It wasn't a Kurig dispenser that we all seem to have in offices today, it was a big bulky thing with tons of buttons that someone had to regularly fill with 3lb bags of sugar and 10lbs boxes of unnamed coffee granules. Everyone hated it. And they hated it because now it cost money. This one tiny change probably did more to lower morale and productivity in that office than setting the place on fire would have done. It was a disaster. People spent more time bemoaning the coffee machine in an environment that had just been made much more open due to the open plan cubicle arrangement, and things spiralled downwards. To make a point someone bought in their own tea; complete with kettle, sugar milk and accompanying accoutrements. It wasn't long before the old coffee machine, which had not been taken away, (just pushed into the warehouse) was demanded by staff to be reinstalled. When that happened because the warehouse staff knew a little bit about plumbing and did it without informing management, things went back again to normal. Everyone drunk horrible tea and coffee and productivity returned again. As an added bonus, we all now had nice plastic cup holders for our crummy coffee too.
The implications of complexity theory for my current organization are also enormous especially as we are just supposed to be coming out of a merger with Schering Plough. I think that merck should try harder to involve the lower echelons in a much more dynamic and cooperative way to solve current problems with solutions we already probably know how to solve. I think there is enough talent at the company all the way down the hierarchy to really transform the way Merck does business. I was inspired to hear in a previous semester how Boeing do this often, and come up with cost savings and efficiencies as well as raising morale in the workplace. Merck needs less orders from on high (coffee machines) and more people working together and listening to each other on how to be more efficient. I believe that the larger the company gets the more inefficient (often by design) the workforce can become. Merck has way to many management levels (there are 5 levels between me and the boss of my group) representing too many chiefs and not enough indians. I think the implications of complexity theory would scare the company to death, and I'm not sure if they could even cope with the apparent Chaos that would ensue to drive improvements!
Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization.
What are the implication of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.
The Butterfly Effect: "within complex organizations, small changes can yield large results" (Obolensky, 2010). This theory was first put forward by Edward Lorenz in the 60's - he was making a point using a weather simulator, that essentially showed that by changing the most insignificant amount of temperature can lead to a much bigger result further down the chain, and that also this change may not produce the same result each time the simulation happened.
Complexity Science and Theory in Organizations is interlinked to this theory. As the butterfly effect is an example of how a seemingly unpredictable response actually has an underlying pattern. There are many examples of these small changes - the Post-It note being the one that really sticks in the mind (pun intended!), came about because 3M allowed it's workers to have 15% of their time at work to do anything they wanted with company equipment. Someone there invented the Post-It!
So now the question is identifying small changes that yielded large results in my organization.
Both examples come from my time at Pickford's. First, the company had a very old office building, built sometime in the 50's, when individual offices were important, and secretaries were really the only people who sat together. The TV program 'Mad Men' had an office that reminded me of something like what we had at Pickford's. Someone then decided that these offices would be removed, and replaced with an open plan style office. I am not sure weather this was a deliberate adoption of Bifurction Theory, or whether this was purely a trend of the times thing, but you would have thought that the world was going to end! Those who had an office suddenly felt that all their power was drained away because nobody had to knock on a door to see them anymore. Yet more people thought the area would just be too noisy with everyone occupying the space, but what happened in fact was just the opposite. If people were not talking to each other more, they were overhearing the way others dealt with customer complaints or sold a particular packing service. Soon, best practices started to emerge and you could see how everyone was learning more from each other.
In addition, employees were encouraged to pin things to the cubicle wall and dress up the cubicle to make them feel at home. This was done, and again the employees seemed very happy that each of them had their own space, not just the few with an office. What really was remarkable though was the feeling of team spirit that started to emerge. Gone was the 'us and them' attitude, and as each person started subconsciously copying others, each felt that they were closer as a team and more enabled to work together and solve problems collectively. I'm not sure they could all put their finger on why this was happening. Even the grumblers (those that actually lost the office space) benefitted from having their team run smoother. Less complaints were escalated and each person found it easier to work out problems with the help of the person "over the wall" in the next cubicle. Of course, sometimes it really did get too loud in there!
A second example was in the negative at Pickford's. Pickford's for some reason always had free coffee or drinks for staff. It was from a vending machine (the type that relies on a number to get what you want), so that each employee would dring a 93, or a 106 etc. so the tea and coffee wasn't that great, but everyone could have as much as they wanted. It never seemed like a big deal.
Then One morning we came to work and unbeknown to em or the staff, head office had sent in for a new coffee machine - and this one - despite the numerous more choices, charged 20p a cup! The quality of the tea and coffee was much better. It even came with lovely little plastic cup holder things and allowed you to put your own mug underneath to get the coffee. It wasn't a Kurig dispenser that we all seem to have in offices today, it was a big bulky thing with tons of buttons that someone had to regularly fill with 3lb bags of sugar and 10lbs boxes of unnamed coffee granules. Everyone hated it. And they hated it because now it cost money. This one tiny change probably did more to lower morale and productivity in that office than setting the place on fire would have done. It was a disaster. People spent more time bemoaning the coffee machine in an environment that had just been made much more open due to the open plan cubicle arrangement, and things spiralled downwards. To make a point someone bought in their own tea; complete with kettle, sugar milk and accompanying accoutrements. It wasn't long before the old coffee machine, which had not been taken away, (just pushed into the warehouse) was demanded by staff to be reinstalled. When that happened because the warehouse staff knew a little bit about plumbing and did it without informing management, things went back again to normal. Everyone drunk horrible tea and coffee and productivity returned again. As an added bonus, we all now had nice plastic cup holders for our crummy coffee too.
The implications of complexity theory for my current organization are also enormous especially as we are just supposed to be coming out of a merger with Schering Plough. I think that merck should try harder to involve the lower echelons in a much more dynamic and cooperative way to solve current problems with solutions we already probably know how to solve. I think there is enough talent at the company all the way down the hierarchy to really transform the way Merck does business. I was inspired to hear in a previous semester how Boeing do this often, and come up with cost savings and efficiencies as well as raising morale in the workplace. Merck needs less orders from on high (coffee machines) and more people working together and listening to each other on how to be more efficient. I believe that the larger the company gets the more inefficient (often by design) the workforce can become. Merck has way to many management levels (there are 5 levels between me and the boss of my group) representing too many chiefs and not enough indians. I think the implications of complexity theory would scare the company to death, and I'm not sure if they could even cope with the apparent Chaos that would ensue to drive improvements!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)