A630.3.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien

After viewing the video here reflect on the following questions 

• Is the Culture Committee at Southwest effective in establishing cultural norms? 
• From what you can tell, what is the purpose of the culture committee at Southwest? 
• What would you see as a viable mission for a culture committee in your place of work (or your last place of work if you are not currently working)? 
• What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

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've got to admit, when I first watched this video I was aghast, and horrified at the same time. I watched it a second time, trying to look for the purpose of the culture committee, and although I may have found it - I'm not sure it's what the intention was for this committee. So let's look at how effective the committee is for establishing norms. Brown (2011) states that norms are really just "organized and shared ideas regarding what members should do and feel" and at Southwest, that means the 10 minute turnaround.

As most airlines spend an hour on the ground, Southwest realized that if they could get theirs back in the air in 10 minutes, they would make more profit and be able to be competitive. In order to accomplish this though, Southwest has the airlines stewardesses clean the planes, the pilot handle the baggage and work the desks and everyone takes on extra duties.  I'm not convinced it was all voluntary; talking about the CEO one report said: 

“He slammed his hand on the table and bellowed out, ‘If you can’t do it I’ll fire you and keep firing and firing until I find people who can do it,” (Schlesinger, J. 2011)

So the culture committee in my mind is there to enforce the norms - somewhat disguised as a happy go lucky team building exercise. Certainly everyone seems to be having fun, but is Southwest saving employees or disguising the fact that Southwest employees are underpaid minions? I had to look into it further.  Turns out that Southwest employees know exactly what they are getting when they sign up, and the system of shared goals and duties is something different from most US companies, but one that actually does build team spirit and a sense of belonging. 

"In many companies, job descriptions clearly define responsibilities between employees and departments. Southwest's philosophy is shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect. Southwest's expectation is that each person's job includes helping colleagues with their work
whenever necessary. By providing greater job flexibility, Southwest believes it improves labour
productivity and provides them a competitive advantage." (Anon, 2005)

So just as Google looks like "goofiness" to an outsider, so too does the way Southwest works - but work it does. So the purpose of the culture committee now serves to have all the employees reminded that they are all in this together, to accentuate that one member of staff is there for another - and that's why we bring you lunch, and to generate a feeling of well being for all involved.  Again, after 30+ years of straight profitability - it's doing just that.

So now we move on to our place of work, and where we see a role for a culture committee. Oh! if only there were such a thing - something tangible, something everyone recognised as doing good, something that binds us all together - wait, am I talking about a culture here - or the committee! The problem as I see it is that nobody at Merck has made a serious effort to introduce a culture that everyone believes in. We have a culture apparently, but few people relate to it in their everyday working lives, and fewer still probably even know what it's for.  The place is of course a beehive - concerned with making money and keeping their jobs, but Merck establishes shareholder value through reductions, not innovations.  When we need another 2% growth, we get it by selling off the worldwide headquarters at Whitehouse Station and splitting everyone up into other corners of the state.  Hardly a team building exercise then.

What Merck does need is a culture committee - it's primary function - to go where no man has gone before and find a culture.  That's going to take enough time on it's own.  To answer the question of what I take away from this exercise and Southwest in particular is that actually, it is possible for a group of people to work together, to share the responsibilities without management interference, to accomplish goals and achieve a real sense of belonging, of teamwork and of a happiness in a job, and still work hard to keep that 'culture' going no matter how big the company. But big oaks grow from small acorns - and while there are small groups who really can do this in our department, Merck is more concerned with making sure these groups are managed, and less about the productivity that could be unleashed if only someone was brave enough to just let go.  

It's the letting go that I want to start to introduce to Merck.  It's this concept: "Southwest's culture, which emphasizes employees as the airline's "first customers" and passengers as the second, has been integral to Southwest's success." that would actually serve Merck well.

• Companies that live to serve the shareholder first are doomed to failure
• Companies need employees, and happy employees are productive employees - managers need to let them get on with it and get out of the way.
• Culture is vital for the organizations success - it's the reason people band together in their own free time and do charity work, or invent something for free - because the satisfaction of doing it is more than anyone could pay.
• Norms are established from the top down, and you don't have to enforce them negatively - see Southwest Airlines.

References:
Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development. (8th ed. ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.


Anon. (2005) Culture is the key at Southwest Airlines. Emerald for Managers. Retrieved from: http://managers.emeraldinsight.com/quality/articles/pdf/southwest.pdf


Schlesinger, J (2011). 10 Minutes that changed Southwest Airlines' future. CNBC. Retrieved from: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43768488

A630.2.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien

After viewing the video (http://youtu.be/AC7ANGMy0yo), reflect on the following questions:

Why do you think the talk is titled 21st Century Enlightenment?
This talk is called 21st Century enlightenment because Matthew Taylor is looking at the concepts of enlightenment that took place and made us what we are today over the last 250 years, and then looking at how we can reinterpret those ideas with a more modern bent to them. We can imagine better ways of thinking for the 21st Century.

What does Matthew Taylor mean when he says "to live differently, you have to think differently"?
I believe what he means is that Enlightenment is a process, not something that has a definitive start and end. In other words, it's an ongoing process, one in which the results of us thinking differently have bought about change in the way we live.  We have changed more in this process of enlightenment over the last 250 years than we have in an preceding era known to man. Therefore, if we wish to improve the lives of others, we have to constantly think of new ways to accomplish it.

At one point in the video (4:10), Taylor argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange". What is he talking about? Can you think of an example within your company or your life that supports this point?
The point he is making here is one about comfort zones.  Everyone has a routine, everyone is somewhat resistant to change, especially if life is quite comfortable the way that it is.  When life is like that, the suggestion that you change job, or move house to a different state is strange - and therefore often rejected.  But the suggestion that last years Christmas party should be held in exactly the same way as last years previous one is familiar, comfortable and therefore normally categorized as "correct".
When my wife and I decided to emigrate to the US, give up a very good job in Sales and Marketing, leave all our family support network behind, with a 4 week old baby and a 1.5 year old and then live off less than $25,000 for more than 2 years, living like students and retraining to become a helicopter pilot - everyone thought we were mad.  It wasn't that we were mad, it was that we were resisting the tendency to make true the fact that it would just be too hard to do. I believe that anything you put your mind to can be accomplished - not matter how impossible it may seem.  People however do have that tendency to find a comfortable position and then work hard to maintain it - which doesn't lead to much progression both for yourself and for the community as a whole.

Taylor argues that our society should eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and that we should spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens. Would this be possible?
A good question, the answer to which I think is no and yes.  To get the whole population to eschew elements of degrading pop culture may be something that actually is impossible.  However, starting small and building on it may well lead to enlightenment for the whole community, then the whole city, country and finally the whole population.  If one thinks of the atrocities inflicted on the world by the German Army in the Second World War, there is little doubt that the majority of the people agree that the genocide was bad, the German's in the wrong - and yet there are still a large portion of the world's population that would deny a holocaust ever existed.  This one example is why I doubt that the world population can ever be convinced to spend more time developing their own empathy.  But on a small scale this is entirely possible.  Take raising a family.  Your own kids develop empathy for animals, other people and society by taking cues from their parents.  It's a taught behavior from early age.  Those unfortunates who for one reason or another do not have parents that are there to teach these skills often end up with little or no empathy.  By grouping together the families that do hold this value dear, you quickly form a like minded community that put pressure on individuals to conform the same way.  If that community grows, and other offshoots follow, it is possible that whole countries of empathetic citizens can exist.

At the end of the video, Taylor talks about atomizing people from collaborative environments and the destructive effect on their growth. What is the implication of these comments for organizational change efforts?
This is one of the most important lessons from the video. Collaboration is an important tool for moving forward with new ideas, and for grouping together the right people to put together an impossible puzzle. Collaboration has been proven to work.  Back to WW2, the collaborative efforts of the allies denied the Axis of world domination and mutual self destruction of whole swaths of people and continents.  The problem with collaboration Matthew Taylor points out is that the repetition of the same formula for collaboration, makes the system itself become ineffective.  It needs people to step outside of that box and do what is right for the current situation, for the problem to be solved or for society to move on.  I think that is what he means the destructive effect on their growth.
What this means for Organizational Development (OD) then is equally true.  There is no one size fits all companies solution, yet the very practice of companies flattening their hierarchies, downsizing their workforce in order to meet expectations is exactly the sort of staying inside the box, that Taylor wishes to avoid.  Just as enlightenment for the 21st Century seeks to put new spin on old thoughts, Organizational Development must itself rethink how and why each time it is utilized to move it forward with real purpose. In a modern society and business environment, everything is changing faster every day.  In such a fast paced and changing environment, it may be the individual that trumps the OD model, and not the collaborative efforts of the many OD practitioners.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
The take away from this exercise is that questioning what is the norm is not always a negative. Organizational culture tends to settle into what has always been, it takes the easy path and stays with the comfortable status quo.  The individual who questions these 'norms' is not the trouble maker, nor the person who is trying least to fit in.  He's probably the guy that by thinking outside the box, by challenging the norm and by exercising the need to find where he can improve Enlightenment for the 21st century, will change a situation, a course of action , some productivity and perhaps the direction of an entire firm for the better.

Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.
Some questions that arise out of the video include:
How much more can I change my life by attempting impossible things?
What things have I accepted as the norm, and are comfortable with, am I pushing for more
every day?
Am I showing enough empathy towards my fellow human beings? Am I strong enough to hold an opinion and challenge the way things are done, so as to help improvement, while being conscious that others may wish to stick with the norms?

Where is there room for improvement? and what will I do to instigate improvement while making sure it is fair to all?  Am I everything I can accomplish, or is there more than this to being a human being?

A630.1.4.RB_Lloyd PayneDamien

After viewing the Youtube video, A Tale of Power and Vision, reflect on your organization or a past organization. In a well-written post to your Reflection Blog, describe a situation from your organizational life that was similar to the situation from the video. Describe the situation in detail making sure to discuss how the organization was able to work through the difficulties to enable real change to occur. (See A tale of Power and Vision)

Change is always very difficult. Nobody likes change, and yet when change happens, it can often be for the better - at least in most people's eyes.  In every workplace there always seems to be the guy that is circling the drain, going round and round with his or her negativity and trying very hard to suck as many people down into his vortex as will come along for the ride.  Unfortunately, these vortex's are strong - and negative attitudes just breed more negativity - before you know it, everyone can be circling the drain, and a manager needs to be able to spot this early and put a plug in the hole to stop the flow of the vortex.
One of my first jobs right out of University was working for a drug company called Hoechst Roussel Vet. As a company it no longer exists (that should tell you something straight away), bought out by a larger and leaner company in the early 2000's.  I was employed as a representative, with a large area of Northern England, and my role was that of a traditional rep - selling drugs to farmers , veterinarians and farm stores.  After some training and shadowing of other reps, my instructions were clear: "Take these products in our portfolio to our customers and get an order."
That all seems fine, until you quickly learn that the tools you were provided with in selling were terribly old fashioned and out of date. Here is the practical example - this is a small section of the "7 steps to selling" - a video that formed the largest part of my training: 7 Steps to Selling
While John Cleese has some relevance, the style was typical of what the company wanted us to do, go out and ask for orders - and in a modern world this was not producing results - at least not for the young upstarts like myself!
There were a few others like me that agreed.  If I didn't believe in the technique then it would show, and my sales would suffer. Think of the times you have been to a car showroom and got cornered by the horribly pushy car salesman who identifies the 7 steps and uses every one on you - have you ever liked buying from him?  It was the same for me and some others in the company.  We persevered to make the change.
All we really wanted was just a matter of style.  Instead of a salesman, we wanted to be a partner.  We would 'train' veterinary nurses in not just our products but in how to run puppy training parties, we would help the practice financially by buying uniforms or suggesting wholesale deals amalgamating all their products to fewer manufacturers to command a better price, and we would help them in promoting their practice by giving talks, meeting clients or whatever else they wanted. We would try to see all the vets - new and old and influence the way they practice by detailing new methods, new drugs and new indications. Often the newer vets were not set in their ways and willing to try. Practice managers would be helped by sending them on courses in management, as they were the ones that did the ordering.
In other words, we wanted to change the expected norm of a salesman. We had tried it, and it was working.

Against us there was pessimism - those that liked to circle the drain. "it's not the technique it's the product!' they would exclaim, "it's not the product as much as my ability to do anything new", "I'm not sure that anyone could do any better with something this old". Whatever the excuse, we just knew that these were the guys we would have to drag after us - nothing was going to get them there but us.  Then there was the pragmatists. "Why rock the boat?" they would say or "Look, you haven't been here very long, just try to fit in and stop making waves". Until the norm was changed, they wouldn't change, they could only follow.
Then there was the company.  In some ways we were lucky - there was enough people in a position to make the change that were willing to listen to new ideas on how to sell products. At least one had a plug - and we latched on to him as the man who could stop the vortex. We had to first convince the company verbally, then demonstrate some of the techniques to a middle manager who would pass his own judgement, then we had to show the figures to prove it worked. Which it did.
It took some time, and even some rogue reps to go ahead and use the system without permission before the pragmatists in the company were convinced.  It took even longer for the pessimists to either get left so far behind that they retired, quit or accepted the new norm.  There were many meetings and conference side bars that thrashed out the concerns.  The company was very figure orientated.  Setting a sales target was something measurable, and  designing sales plans around those targets were a great was to show progress or lack thereof.  Our method relied on trust, on personality and on the individuals ability to be able to click with a practice.  It also required working closer with fewer vets rather than trying to see all vets on a regular basis regardless of the size of the vet. It took time to show real growth rather than the instantaneous "I got an order!"
The company was worried about 'cherry picking', we saw the value in having less vets in partnerships over seeing all vets in an area with sales calls.
Marketing had to change the way that they worked, redesigning BOGOF deals (Buy One Get One Free) that catered to everyone into amalgamated and individualized deals for fewer but larger practices. We asked for practice leaflets sponsored and paid for by us but with our logo on them on general healthcare of pets - small things that practices can't afford but leave them indebted to you. Small animal vets got marketing plans that involved cat and dog vaccines, wormers and help with puppy parties.  Large animal vets got visits to problem farms from us and our in house vets, trials for new products with the most influential vets all over the country, and packages for our products that tied the use of our exclusive products with those that had generic competition.
As it happened, there were other savings that the company picked up on that we did not.  We did less running around and so saved on gas and cars.  We had less staff turnover as the freedom and authority given to each rep was increased.  Reps started to enjoy their work and transferred the same techniques to other areas - individual and large farms (end users of the products), the wholesalers themselves and the pet owners. This enjoyment meant higher productivity and yes, more overall sales.
But the point at which we knew it really was the better way forward was when we saw our competitors trying the same things. Flattery was always the best compliment, but as a company we had all jumped the gap first and were charging forward.