A631.1.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien

Review the OD Application found on page 274 of your textbook. Then view the videos below:

http://youtu.be/zCOfOFMiLtE    and    http://youtu.be/Etwuap-_Azk    



Do you see value in the EcoSeagate team development process?

I really do see the benefits of this team development process, even if it isn't the somewhat lavish affair that EcoSeagate is, I think that the benefits of these team building exercises far outweigh the monetary costs. Not only do courses like this teach you how to solve conflict, how to work together with individuals that you have never met before and how to come together to solve a problem; these courses also teach a group of people that work in the same company who each other is, where they come from and how well each can perform under pressure, or in social situations. I believe that just such a course will break down those barriers that exist between colleagues, especially because people you work with are often isolated in a work environment, with everything that that entails - hierarchy, job description or other separator. What EcoSeagate, and other courses just like it will have you realize is that everyone is just a human being, and so much can be accomplished through just working together as humans. 

Why would something like this be necessary in a high-performing organization?

Something like this is necessary in a high performing organization because those very same barriers we just talked about still exist in the workplace, and breaking them down is even more crucial in an organization that needs to be efficient as possible. Efficiency in problem solving, in teamwork, in being able to come together to either devise the next big thing for the company or to work through the next big issue and come up with a solution together is vital today for a company that wants to compete in a fast paced environment. I also think that such courses are good for morale, and also for staff retention. Often companies can lose sight of the talent that they have, and EcoSeagate can act in two ways. Firstly it shows the participants that the company is willing to invest in them. When I was a Sales Rep for Hoechst, every year the company spent large amounts of money on a sales conference - where all the reps went with the sales and marketing departments to a foreign country - where we mixed the latest product launches with some company paid leisure trips. They were great - they got the reps excited about the new products, and also instilled in them a sense of belonging, a sense that you meant something to the company, and a sense that the company was still going somewhere. You never felt you were about to be downsized.
     I hope that the participants of EcoSeagate would be feeling the same way - valued, important and part of something much bigger than just their cubicle. I'm sure they return home just full of beans!

Could your organization benefit from a similar activity?

     Merck could definitely benefit from this sort of activity, yet I doubt that the shareholders who are in it for the short term would be very happy with the first CEO who decided to give it a go. And this is the biggest problem with the largest of companies today - they chase the dreams of the shareholder far more often than they invest in retaining talent that they have. Merck today is about meeting shareholder value. If Merck has to cut 20% of it's workforce to keep those shareholders happy, then so be it. The consequences of this are far reaching - and probably immeasurable, and that is why the formula stays. Because you can't measure the success of any EcoSeagate very accurately, because in order to justify having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a good team spirit, or to be unable to prove that a participants now energized enthusiasm for the company will produce anything more than it did before the course - then companies don't do it. Laying off a person has a monetary value - the effect it has on that person's colleagues does not.
     Merck really needs to build a sense of belonging, a sense of value and a sense that those left out of the cuts are really an investment in the future and not just the next in line for further cuts later on. Conflict is mostly non-existent because people at Merck are not prepared to make waves in case they make the short list for downsizing. But so is innovation, efficiency and the pursuit of excellence. Working for Merck is like telling all the kids at a birthday party to smile for the camera and then blowing out the candles yourself just before you take the picture.

A630.9.4.RB _LloydPayneDamien

Watch this video:

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/eric_schmidt_on_business_culture_technology_and_social_issues and answer these questions:

Does Schmidt's description of the Google Culture make sense to you?
It does make sense in so much as it is obvious that Google wants the right people in their company and not just the qualified people in there.  So many companies now send out a job description, primarily sort out the applicants due to initial requirements and qualifications and then interview everyone who is left.  At the interview, the interviewers know that on paper they are qualified to do the job, now all they have to do is find the one that is the best fit for the company.  For most experienced people, this is an easy workaround as the interviewee.  Essentially, you have to be well dressed, polite, don't say anything controversial and then make them smile a lot or laugh a little.  I tend to treat interviews in a backwards fashion.  I do all of the above, yet treat it as if I am interviewing them.  I want to see if this company is the right fit for me.  Are the people friendly?, can I determine their work ethic? is this a good career move for me?  What starts as an interview normally ends up being a conversation, and that is what makes you likable and gets you hired.  I've never been through 5 interviews before - let alone 15, so I don't know how much more they are finding out......

Is this a reasonable way to view the work that most people are doing in your workplace?
I think it's reasonable, because you have to let employees give you 100% of their effort, rather than force them to do it by brow-beating them.  Giving them the time to work on non-related subjects lets them let off steam, and maybe even create something that is a market winner. (See post-it notes) I like the idea of a flexible company like this - but I imagine it's harder for the managers to let go than it is for the employees to adopt.

As a leader, does it take courage to have and to implement this point of view?
Sure, it does.  It's a different style of leadership that most may not be used to as a leader - but leadership is doing the right thing, and it seems to be working right now at Google.  What seems to be apparent is the series of checks and balances installed at google though, combined with the right personnel this makes for a well oiled machine that lets leaders take care of the major problems and not the minutia.

Could this approach backfire?
Yes it could - but only if the hiring process goes wrong.  I think that's why they do so many interviews, to wheedle out the guys that make them smile and laugh, and are qualified on paper, but are in it for the money or the glory, and not for the work.  I'm sure there are a few that slip through the net, just as there are people who can fool a lie detector test; but that is half the fun of interviewing.  It's like a box a chocolates without a guide - you never really know what you've got until it's a little late.  When I was first started hiring at Pickfords, I was pretty new to it, yet knew exactly what I was looking for.  You can tell if someone is intelligent from talking to them, and I consider myself a pretty good judge of character.  I don't get all corporate and high and mighty on them, I beak the ice and start a good conversation.  But as a backup, I started using an agency.  They pre-screened candidates and I was able to request more from them than I would be able to by law.  For example I could ask them to send me candidate that were all under 30, or nobody who was a student and likely to leave - all those things you can't "legally" ask someone in an interview can be sorted first by the agency.  Then of course, the full time employee for the first 6 weeks works for the agency and I buy them from them if they work out.  If they don't I get someone else, no hassle, no excuses and no civil suits for wrongful dismissal!  Although the costs were higher to recruit because of the transfer fees from the agency when they became my employee, it wasn't prohibitive and left me free to discover mistakes I would inevitably make and not get landed with a duff employee that was just good at interviews.  It worked out great and I got some great employees this way.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

I'd like to actually experience a different interview process rather than all the standard ones I now consider myself pretty adept at, so that I could use this in the future myself - can anyone get me a sit in on a Google interview or 12?

Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.

Employment isn't just about qualification.  To me a degree shows that you can stick to something and complete it, and probably means you are more socially adaptable to different environments. It's also not just about personality.  A 15 minute interview may go well, but can you stand the guy for a whole week?  It's not also just about stereotypes;  young women are not just going to get pregnant and you can teach an old dog new tricks.  23 year olds' can make good managers just as well as the 40 something they always pick over him.  Leadership in hiring is about taking a leap of faith - maybe even a controlled risk, but hiring the right person isn't always something that shows in an interview or on a resume.

A630.8.4.RB _LloydPayneDamien

After viewing the  video  http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower.html
reflect on the following questions:

Do you agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergartners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students?
I loved this video, because for 5 minutes I was captivated and motivated.  It showed how Topsy-Turvey the world of business really is! I do agree with Tom's analysis, and having had kids it is easy to see why.  Kids have an inbuilt ability to get on with each other - something that is lost over time to adults, and I am not sure why.  Most mothers will tell you that they worry and fret for weeks about their little ones going to school for the first time, but when they drop them off the kid runs into the playground and immediately just starts playing with some other strange kid - much to the bemusement and ire of the mother. How is it possible, that children can be firm friends in under five minutes and yet adults can spend a lifetime living next to their next door neighbor and not even know their name?  If the secret is just a loss of inhibitions and a naive ability to ask and communicate - then wouldn't the world of business be a much better and more productive place for it? If we had kept the skills of social interaction that we obviously had as a 4 or 5 year old - would we really need direction from a manager on daily tasks? As adults we look for someone to take charge, for someone to tell us what to do.  We rarely question the assigned leader, because someone else made the decision that he was fit to lead.  Take a board of directors for example.  They choose the CEO and make them accountable for the business performance, and meet once a quarter and discuss strategy and business direction.  But who appointed the Board? It wasn't God, so who says they are any better at giving advice on share buybacks or slashing the workforce than you and I?  The answer is probably no one, but by loosing their inhibitions in a group environment and by taking the opportunities to lead where others have left a vacuum, they have found themselves in the executive bathroom of teamwork.

Can you think of any other reasons why kids might perform better?
Several. Kids don't argue or assume that they are more right than the next kid - they just try everything and move on.  Kids don't say 'no' as often as adults, or have set opinions on what works and what doesn't.  As each kid has little experience in anything, then all suggestions bear equal weight. As big business will tell you that 'experience matters', one wonders if there is any real grounds for that assumption based on Tom Wujec's example.  Finally, kids have not developed an ego or been typecast into a household role (the boss, the peacemaker, the breadwinner, the house husband etc etc).

In your view, why do CEOs with an executive assistant perform better than a group of CEO's alone?
The answer is power.  CEO's think they know more than everyone else in the company - after all, that is why they are CEO right?  When you are paid million of dollars, have the use of the company jet and helicopter, stay in $1100 a night hotels, and eat out in NYC three times a week with other "considerably important" CEO's - you get conditioned into thinking this, weather you like it or not.  It's something that is harder to fight against than it is just to accept.  You deal with multi million dollar questions on an hourly basis, are responsible for the very survival of thousands of families.  It's somewhat akin to a "God Complex" that some doctors fall foul of.  Now put two of them together and give them a task.  Suddenly, we are in a fight to see who is best, who will win - it's a matter of pride and some insane belief that it really matters. Executive assistants have no such delusions of grandeur.  They are there to learn, to facilitate and to help out.  To make the impossible possible and still have all the paperwork in order when it's demanded.  With an assistant on board, they are playing the role of the glue that bonds a team together.  Not needing to have an ego in their role, the executive assistant can quickly cut through the bull, and respectfully challenge the leadership, while moving the whole process forward.  CEO's make decisions, executive assistants see that those decisions are enacted - and this is what they do here - combining the several no doubt perfect ideas into a better structure.

If you were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, how could you relate the video to process intervention skills?
As the text lays out, the principal point of an intervention workshop is to help work groups become more aware of the way they operate and work together.  It's all about teamwork, and the roles that we take within those teams. Trial and error are key to getting the job done, and members must sympathetically listen and reflect feelings to one another for the team to be effective in that trial and error stage. The goal is that this group will take away this knowledge to develop their own problem solving techniques.  The job of the OD Practitioner would be to facilitate activities that help bring this to fruition.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
 I think I would use this exercise as a model for how to effectively demonstrate open communication and members must be be willing to hear the ideas of others within my own teams. I must remember to be always open to new ideas, to trial new methods and not stick with the way it has always been done - asking for and hopefully getting creative solutions. Empowerment is also key here - any my career will be about empowering people for new insights and better performance.

Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.
I want to be 5 again!