A635.8.3.RB - Transformational Strategies

Jim “Mattress Mack” McIngvale has been running Gallery Furniture since 1981 and knew a change was needed after the housing market crashed in 2008 and a fire destroyed their primary location in 2009 causing over $30 million in losses.  The organization’s transformation (OT) was coincidentally influenced by a book Mcingvale read aptly named “Influencer: The Power to Change Anything” and it set the foundation to change their 30-year-old sales process. Brown (2011) states OT is “drastic, abrupt change to total structures, managerial processes, and corporate cultures” in which “nothing is sacred, and there are few, if any, guidelines” (p. 399).  There are two approaches to large-scale change programs: incremental and transformation. Gallery Furniture opted for the latter and implemented a transformational change through influencers discussed in the book. It’s evident McIngvale recognized that not only did the company’s sales techniques need to change, but the entire culture needed to be revamped. Luckily, McIngvale was willing to be flexible in changing Gallery Furniture’s corporate culture.  According to Figure 15.4 below, a strong culture is achieved when member commitment to values is strong and the number of members sharing values is high.

The first thing he did was ensure employees were following up and contacting their customers which led to a $300-400K increase in sales.  Next, the influencer program established ways to improve employee motivation and abilities which impacted them personally, socially, and structurally.  The new program catapulted the organization into successfully building a strong culture. Additionally, the company achieved success because it was able to properly align its culture with its strategy.  While its culture prior to its influencer program wasn’t terrible, it didn’t have anything close to the member commitment and value sharing strength after the program was implemented. Therefore, Gallery Furniture was able to fall into the Manage the Change quadrant found in Figure 15.5 since there was a high need for strategic change and the change was compatible with the existing culture.

Stanley McChrystal, retired U.S. Army general, gave an inspiring TED talk in 2011 about listening, learning, and leading.  My vision of a four-star general’s leadership style is one that is commanding, direct, and maybe even a little close-minded because there is no way they could admit to being wrong.  Sort of a my way or the highway approach. McChrystal’s speech reminded me of why it is not wise to make assumptions. He was used to the traditional way of doing business in the Army in which orders were given and people listened without ever questioning.  But he found out after the 9/11 attacks that “instead of giving orders, you're now building consensus and you're building a sense of shared purpose” (TED, 2011) to be an effective leader in such a rapidly changing environment. He also found himself in an entirely new world with numerous generational differences, using an example of the Army Ranger who was in the sixth grade during on 9/11 while McChrystal already had years of Army experience under his belt.  McChrystal stated that “it reminded me that we're operating a force that must have shared purpose and shared consciousness, and yet he has different experiences, in many cases a different vocabulary, a completely different skill set in terms of digital media than I do and many of the other senior leaders” (TED, 2011). He realized he needed to bridge all those differences to ensure his Army shared the same vision and values. Sharing the same values and strengthening member commitment to these values would create a strong culture as evidenced in the Figure 15.4 matrix.  McChrystal also mentioned how he was “a lot more willing to listen, a lot more willing to be reverse-mentored from lower” (TED, 2011), he learned relationships “are the sinew which hold the force together” (TED, 2011), and he believed “that a leader isn’t good because they’re right; they’re good because they’re willing to learn and to trust” (TED, 2011). Those three resounding statements epitomize not only effective leadership but exceptional leadership as well. McChrystal realized a need for a strategic change to his leadership style in order to adapt to an evolving force and culture.  I would say mission accomplished.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.  

TED2011. (2011).  Listen learn...then lead.  Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare

VitalSmarts Video. (2012, September 17).  Influencer | Gallery furniture case study [Video file].  Retrieved from https://youtu.be/E20RW75Fhu4

A635.7.3.RB - INSEAD Reflection

This week’s blog post will cover what I find to be an interesting subject: self-managed teams.  While I have heard of the self-managed team concept, I was never formally educated about the subject nor felt I had any experience with them.  As a matter of fact, I struggled with understanding the term at first because it sounds quite contradictory or an oxymoron. I have always worked in organizations with a traditional hierarchy, so a few of my initial questions were “how does a team manage itself? Is a supervisor or manager involved in any capacity? Are self-managed teams more effective than traditional teams?”  

After researching I found that I wasn’t alone in thinking a self-managed team sounds like a contradiction with Paul Tesluk (INSEAD, 2008), Associate Professor of Management and Organisation at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland,  stating “it is a contradiction, in some ways it is a bit of a paradox of how do you lead teams to lead themselves”. Tesluk (2008) goes on to describe a self-managed team as having formal responsibility and authority to make their own decisions on how they are going to accomplish their tasks instead of a supervisor.  I also learned that there are pros and cons to using self-managed teams. For example, Brown (2011) suggests that some drawbacks associated with using these teams include: the task, people, and context may not require a self-managed work team, managers and leaders do not understand their roles, self-managed teams may lack proper training, and organizations lacking rewards for performance can create problems.  On the other hand, creating self-managed work teams can bring benefits to an organization. The self-managed team concept is still considered a fairly new practice despite many organizations having already implemented these teams for years. Therefore, it is difficult to find quantifiable data to support the benefits, but the practice is finally gaining traction because competitors are realizing the value self-managed teams can provide.  Brown (2011) suggests that “some companies know that self-managed work teams are having a positive effect on earnings and are not inclined to pass along their techniques to competitors” (p. 353). Chuck Blakeman, founder of Crankset Group, agrees that self-managed teams are the future, are time-tested, proven, and here to stay. He posits that these team team members take more ownership in their decisions, the team most affected by their decisions will be better at making it vs. a single manager, and “these companies grow faster, are more productive and more profitable, have lower turnover, and have increased longevity” (Blakeman, 2014, para. 7).

Personally, I would love to work on a self-managed work team.  I am currently working within a traditionally structured organization and team, but I think my position has similar characteristics to a self-managed team.  Our supervisor identifies goals for us to accomplish, yet he does not tell us how to get them done, that is up to us. So, we have a lot of freedom to determine what we feel are the best routes or methods in task achievement.  Being part of a self-managed work team would be a natural fit for me and I have no doubt I would be highly motivated to perform. Furthermore, I think I would also perform well as an external manager of a self-managed team, but not without honing some skills first.  The primary area I would focus on is knowing when and when not to get involved with the team. Tesluk (2008) refers to this as the authority balance beam in which “you have to walk that carefully and delicately and use careful judgement as when to intervene and when to back off” (INSEAD).  I would also focus on improving my coaching skills since my primary function would be to coach the team on how to run meetings, teach self-management and communication techniques, and encourage them to take ownership in their decisions.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.  

Blakeman, C. (2014).  Why self-managed teams are the future of business.  Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/chuck-blakeman/why-self-managed-teams-are-the-future-of-business.html

INSEAD. (2008, September 22).  Self-managing teams: debunking the leadership paradox [Video file].  Retrieved from https://youtu.be/GBnR00qgGgM

A635.6.3.RB - EcoSeagate

CEO Bill Watkins of Seagate Technology, a computer hard drive manufacturer, holds an outdoor lab aptly named EcoSeagate costing about $2 million each year.  EcoSeagate is a fitting name since it combines ecology or the study of the relationship between organisms and their physical surroundings, with the company name.  Outdoor labs are used as a method to foster team development and leadership and often encourages discussion of leadership styles, teamwork, and interpersonal relationships (Brown, 2011).  The participants consist of 200 Seagate Technology employees divided into teams based on physical ability, position in the company, sex, nationality, and personality.

I watched the videos of the 2008 EcoSeagate event and it was very impressive in terms of physical environment, team challenges, and camaraderie.  However, I was still left wondering how much value it provided to the organization after they returned to their jobs. It was evident they were successful in using skills as a team to overcome competitive events, but I wasn’t absolutely convinced they gained $2 million worth of value for the experience.  Did they learn how to learn more about each other? Yes. Did they learn how to work together to conquer biking, climbing, and navigating challenges? Absolutely. But the question remained: Did this outdoor lab fully translate into at least $2 million dollars or more of value gained? That I cannot answer accurately since CEO Watkins himself “has not been able to prove or point to quantitative results of EcoSeagate” (Brown, 2011, p. 274).  I think that may be a problem. Brown (2011) suggests that team development is all about reviewing performance and “is an intensive examination of team operation focusing upon how members function as a team, and how they can overcome operating problems and improve their efficiency” (p. 270). So how is Watkins developing his teams if he isn’t examining their performance? I still applaud his efforts for at least showing his employees he is trying to invest in them.  Many CEO’s would much rather put that kind of money in their own pocket or towards something that will guarantee a return on their investment.

I definitely think EcoSeagate provides value despite the lofty price tag paid out for this team development event and the lack of evidence that it is providing benefits to the organization.  Maybe not $2 million worth of value, but value nonetheless since sometimes investments cannot be quantified. For example, outdoor labs can break down interpersonal barriers and “holding the lifeline for someone suspended off a cliff has a dramatic impact on both parties when they return to work, where they need to trust and depend on one another in a less dramatic setting” (Brown, 2011, p. 274).  I believe my organization, or any organization for that matter, would benefit from an outdoor lab or other team development exercise. I remember joining a newly formed team and our supervisor would conduct a “team building exercise” at least once a year. This was a fancy way of getting everyone together to interact outside of the office. We’d typically go to someone’s house, have lunch, and play games.  I didn’t see the value at the time but those events brought us much closer together and I viewed them more as a family than coworkers. Most people would do anything to help their family and that translated back to the workplace. We were there for each other no matter what. I think the key to these type of events is that value will be gained as long as the event is planned properly, performance is reviewed, and follow-up is conducted to ensure lessons were learned by participants.  

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A635.5.3.RB - Video Debrief of Team MA

This week’s blog exercise was actually pretty fun since it provided me an opportunity to learn a little about how Steve Jobs approached his NeXT startup venture in the 1980’s, how he facilitated the NeXT team dynamics, and how my personality would have fit into this team.  I think it’s safe to say Steve Jobs has not only become somewhat of a legend because of his technological accomplishments, but also from the way he created his businesses and interacted with people. On second thought, strike that, I think he has reached legendary status at this point. I remember purchasing my first Apple product, an iPod Generation 3, back in 2003.  At the time, I bought into the Apple craze that was sweeping the world and marveled at the advanced technology they provided.  However, as time progressed I became somewhat frustrated with the way Apple forced me into using their proprietary software and began looking into other options.  I gave Apple another chance when my wife bought her first iPhone, but the end result was still the same. I felt Apple lacked the freedom of how I wanted to use their products and these limitations turned me off.  To this day, I respect and admire Apple’s ingenuity and contributions to the tech world, but their products are just not for me. Anyway, I digress since this exercise is not really about my personal experience and opinion of Apple and their products.  

The youtube video Steve Jobs Brainstorms with NeXT Team gives us a glimpse of a young Steve Jobs building his startup from the ground up.  It shows us how Steve tried to turn his visions into reality and the team dynamics of the individuals that left Apple to follow him.  A few weeks ago I completed a survey through NextSteps Research that produced a Management Assessment Profile (MAP) consisting of characteristics and how they related to a large dynamic business environment.  This week I am tasked to discuss how my MAP characteristics would have fit into this NeXT team environment. The first thing I noticed in the video was how Steve Jobs interacted with his team. To my surprise, it was nothing like I expected.  I built my assumptions of Steve around everything I have heard or read regarding how difficult he could be to work for and with. I anticipated him to be more impersonal, arrogant, and authoritarian. Someone who dominated every aspect of every process and was well, just plain mean.  Yet, he seemed beyond reasonable in my opinion and just very focused on keeping everyone else focused, especially considering the amount of pressure he must have been experiencing. Granted, I understand this was an incredibly small sample size into his approach, but again I saw no indication of any unreasonableness.  

So here I am, sitting in a room with Steve Jobs and the rest of the NeXT team trying to strategize about developing a product that does not exist and hopefully make the startup successful.  First off, I am uncomfortable. The MAP has a scale ranging from a large company to mid-sized company all the way down to a small startup company. My place on this scale showed I might best fit within a large company, so a startup company already does not fit my characteristics.  I am also not a big risk taker and tend to seek out positions that provide security as evidenced in my MAP showing that I have a very low desire for both business and personal risk. To essentially have blind faith and follow someone’s vision in hopes of longevity is uncharacteristic and feels like a win big or lose big gamble.  Another area I may have faltered is the need to create or innovate. I think saying the NeXT team is made up of creative and innovative individuals would be a gross understatement, so I’m not sure I would have meshed well with the team in this area and may have felt quite intimidated. Although I agree with the MAP that I am highly motivated to solve problems, my process creativity and inventiveness might have slowed down the team in this area.  This is especially true since I am more comfortable with a set of standard rules or practices but like to modify or use them in other ways to solve problems, however, these do not exist since this is a startup. Despite these aforementioned shortcomings in a startup environment, I do have strengths that would help in making strong contributions to the NeXT team. I believe Jobs said something along the lines of “Do it from the heart, because you're passionate about it, more so than simply to make a buck!” (Steve Job Brainstorms, 2012).  His philosophy aligns with my MAP’s financial characteristic in how I am not driven by financial metrics to quantify success. My MAP’s area of the achievement attribute displayed that I have a high desire for a challenge, I am highly motivated to exceed goals, and I know how to use resources to achieve goals. All of these attributes seem to fit well with Job’s vision and I believe would have strengthened the synergy amongst the NeXT team. I am aware this exercise was just that, an exercise. But visualizing myself in that room with Steve Jobs and the NeXT team provided great value to me because it forced me to visualize how I would have responded to his challenges and interacted with the team.  I believe that once I was over the initial shock of leaving the security of Apple, I would have performed very well in meeting Job’s expectations.

Reference

Сергей Петренко. January 2012. Steve Jobs Brainstorms with NeXT Team. [Video file].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM&feature=youtu.be

A635.4.3.RB - Build a Tower, Build a Team

I completely agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergarteners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students.  I believe the children were better at this task because they tried to build “a” structure instead of trying to plan to build the tallest structure like adults.  It was evident the children performed better because they were learning what did not work through the repetitive building process. For example, children may build ten structures in ten minutes, each improving upon the next because “kids get instant feedback about what works and what doesn't work” (Wujec,2010).  Whereas, adults may use the same ten minutes orienting themselves to the task, talking about it, figuring out what it's going to look like, and jockeying for power. Then they spend some more time planning, organizing, sketching and laying out spaghetti (Wujec, 2010). Essentially, the adult approach is analysis paralysis and the child approach is to scrap planning and go straight to building.  Additionally, the children in this exercise completely remove the power struggles typically associated with team members trying to accomplish a task. Hence, there is no time wasted on trying to determine who is in charge, or whose idea is right or wrong.

Another interesting discovery from this exercise was the performance of CEO’s vs. CEO’s with an executive assistant on the team.  The team with the executive assistant performed significantly better in comparison. I wouldn’t go so far to say this was a surprise, but interesting nonetheless.  I immediately picture a group of CEO’s fighting with each other during this exercise because they might not be used to taking direction, more familiar with leading and directing people.  On the other hand, I think the key to improved performance on the team with the assistant was the special management skill they brought to the team. The thought of a typical CEO may conjure up visions of a boss solely dictating what to do and when to do it.  However, the reality is that most CEO’s have an executive assistant facilitating positive decisions and actions. Inevitably, CEO’s have to manage, but who manages the CEO? The answer lies within the marshmallow and spaghetti exercise by the executive assistants demonstrating their ability to manage CEO’s and facilitate processes.  

Process interventions study the behavior of groups as a whole and the individuals within these groups.  These interventions consist of group content, or the “what” or task at hand, and the group process of “how” the group will accomplish the task.  Brown (2011) suggests that process interventions are used to help groups “become more aware of the way it operates and the way its members work with one another” (p. 199).  If I were asked to conduct a process intervention workshop I would use the “Build a tower, build a team” video to focus on how the kindergarten students were able to outperform adults.  These young students were not more intelligent or experience than adults, yet they still produced the tallest structures. Process interventions center on five areas relative to group performance:  communication, member roles and functions in groups, group problem solving and decision making, group norms and growth, and leadership and authority. Since “process interventions are all about how the group is going about accomplishing its task” (Brown, 2011, p. 203) I would use the video to show how the kindergarteners differed from the adults in each of these areas.   

Throughout my personal and professional life, I have been somewhat indecisive when it comes to taking action.  Granted, I have definitely improved in this area through education and experience, but I know I still have work to do in this area.  I had to really change my mindset over these years to be less concerned with making mistakes and more concerned with learning from mistakes.  As cliche as it sounds, I've learned that making mistakes is not only okay, it is essential to growth. This week’s exercise has validated my suspicion that it’s better to commit to a decision, take action, and learn from it rather than to analyze the infinite possibilities and delay taking action or not take any action at all.  My approach to some group situations will be more like a group of kindergarteners building a structure from spaghetti and marshmallows with no fear of failure, worry about being wrong, or concern for power struggles.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wujec, T. (2010, Feb). Build a tower, build a team. TEDTalks.  Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower#t-389804

A635.3.3.RB - 50 Reasons Not to Change/The Tribes We Lead

Change.  This is a subject that is near and dear to me for many reasons.  I think the primary reason I’m so attracted to this subject is that I became fascinated by change and embraced it the moment I realized it is natural and inevitable.  This was a stark contrast to how I approached it in my younger years battling change and in a sense treating it as my enemy. My philosophy was more closely related to some of the reasons found in the 50 Reasons Not to Change graphic.  Some of my reasons not to change were because I thought it was contrary to policy, it was too much trouble, and everything was working OK. Looking back, I think I spent more energy fighting change when I could have expended less energy by accepting it and therefore both produce and receive benefits as a result.  This is not to say I am immune to resisting some change. I still find myself not wanting to change certain things in my organization, especially processes, because of time sensitivity and complexity. It’s not that I don’t want to tackle making such changes, but the challenge lies within simply not having enough time in the day.  I think one of my strengths is my ability to analyze processes, find the weak areas, and make improvements to them. Yet, I tend to have a “let’s not reinvent the wheel” approach if something works. Maybe that is something I need to examine further. Maybe reinventing the wheel is necessary every so often.

Embracing change is a mindset and requires conscious effort to remind one’s self that change can be a very good thing.  This helps in facing change with open arms and giving it a chance. It does no good to consider change a failure and dismissing it before giving it an opportunity to succeed.  I remember a few years ago when my team and I were on a call together and our supervisor announced a major change to how we would do business going forward. Everyone seemed devastated, angry, and certain this would create more harm than good.  I quickly thought about the impacts and I actually thought the change was needed and beneficial. Sure, there would be more work initially, but it would help all of us in the long run. I addressed the team and told them why I thought this was a positive and asked all of them to embrace it, especially since it wasn’t going away.  My supervisor called me after our team call and thanked me for getting everyone on board. That moment changed the way I approached changes and convinced me that positivity was a key element to any change. However, I still cringe when I see change initiatives that offer no value and seem implemented just for the sake of change itself.  I get it, change is necessary and can provide immense benefits to an organization, that is as long as the change is well orchestrated and feedback from others in the organization was sought out beforehand. Too many times have I seen a plan implemented without leadership fully understanding the impact the plan had on processes and people.  Brown (2011) suggests that “the single biggest reason organizational changes fail is that no one thought about endings or planned to manage their impact on people” (p. 145).

Seth Godin discusses people becoming leaders to bring about changes and how tribes are key to such changes in his 2009 TED Conference aptly called “The Tribes We Lead”.  While I agree with his concept I do not think this is anything revolutionary, but just Godin putting a label on something that has existed for thousands of years. He even admits tribes “are a very simple concept that goes back 50,000 years” (2009).  I couldn’t agree more that someone who stands up against the status quo, has a unique idea, and brings people together who support and share in the belief of this idea is the epitome of a leader. However, while I don’t think it is common for people to challenge the status quo, I do believe the process that occurs after is natural.  People are always looking for others with common interests and beliefs and if this comes in the form of connecting with someone trying to make a change, it will of course happen. So, the real change process begins when that individual becomes a leader by taking a stand against the norm. Granted, the opportunity for change grows stronger as people come together in numbers, and if we want to label these people as tribes, then yes, change is driven by tribes.  What this exercise has taught me is that I need to continue to embrace the inevitability of change and to not be afraid to challenge the status quo.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Godin, S. (2009, February). TEDTalk: The tribes we lead. [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead?language=en

A635.2.3.RB - How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

Marcia Blenko, leader of Bain & Company's Global Organization Practice, discusses how companies can make better and faster decisions in her 2010 interview with Harvard Business Review. Blenko is a perfect example of an external OD practitioner because she is brought in to an organization from the outside to assess and develop them.  These external practitioners bring a fresh perspective to the organization, can be more objective, and are less likely to be biased or feel pressure from the organization’s leadership since they do not fall within the hierarchy. Blenko just touches on how to improve and increase the speed of decisions in her interview by briefly outlining a five-step process that includes the following:

1. Understand how well the organization is making decisions.

2. Identify the critical decisions.

3. Take the critical decisions and use a what, who, how, when approach to implementing a plan.

4. Make sure the entire organization supports the individual decisions.

5. Embed throughout the organization.

Blenko also suggests that decision effectiveness has a positive correlation to employee engagement and organizational performance.  She states that “companies, where it’s easier to make decisions and get things done, are more stimulating places for employees to work” (1:43). While Blenko has revealed data to support her argument, she also admits that this correlation should come as no surprise and common sense should tell us that better decisions will lead to positive outcomes regarding employees and the organization as a whole.  However, many organizations struggle to obtain a culture of better decision-making leading to high levels of employee engagement and organizational performance. Some barriers preventing this culture may include people not being clear about who makes the decision, the right information not being communicated to the proper decision maker, leadership behaviors such as not engaging issues until after decisions are made, or individuals in the roles to make decisions lacking talent (Harvard Business Review, 2010).  In addition to Blenko’s list of impediments, I also think that the level of accountability and potential consequences of the decision-maker would tend to be significant factors of the quality and speed in the decision-making process. For example, Kopeikina (2006) claims that “leaders are paid to select strategies that increase value to shareholders, increase sales and improve effectiveness — strategies that will deliver the best consequences for the business. All business decisions are usually made with these major objectives in mind. However, no one can fully foresee the consequences of a decision at the moment he or she is making it. The market, along with other forces, can interfere and change the environment. As a result, many managers are paralyzed by the fear of making the wrong choice” (para. 1).

Speaking of quality and speed, Blenko suggests that the four elements of good decisions are quality, speed, yield, and effort.  I racked my brain trying to think of additional elements missing from her list and any additional element that came to mind could already fit into her list.  Except one; feedback. It could possibly fall into the quality element because seeking feedback will lead to a quality decision. However, feedback should be sought out whenever time is not a factor and I view it as an essential element to making good decisions. This exercise has taught me the value of Blenko’s four elements leading to a good decision and will assist me in applying these elements in my personal and professional life.  Additionally, it has also validated my suspicion that increase employee engagement correlates to good decisions throughout the organization and is essential to its overall positive performance.

References

Harvard Business Review. (2010, October 13). How companies can make better decisions, faster. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxpg6D4Hk8

Kopeikina, L. (2006, January 6). The Elements of a Clear Decision. Retrieved from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-elements-of-a-clear-decision/