A631.6.4.RB_LarsonKurt, Transformational Strategies

An organizational change is a change in corporate culture. As we know from discussing what is in Brown (2011,) corporate cultures are the shared values, beliefs an organization holds true and can be a particularly heavy influencer on how its members preform. Changing that culture to better align with today’s global economy and market involves innovation, adaptation that many times may involve the use of an external OD practitioner before, during and after the transformational change. Particularly when the culture is resistant to change and innovations, the OD practitioner can greatly enhance the success of these strategic changes.

Examples of these corporate cultural changes and keeping in-line with an ever-changing market would be Gallery Furniture of Houston Texas. According to its owner Jim McIngvale, Gallery Furniture enjoyed 30 years of profitable sales and growth that ended after the housing bubble burst in late 2007. McIngvale realized that in order to not only survive but grow during the recession, innovation and changing the process by which his employees changed their current culture of behavior, looking for new and fresh methods of delivering to the customer what they wanted was paramount to the continued success of Gallery Furniture.

General Stanley McChrystal discusses how in the blink of an eye the manner in which an organization like the U.S. Army had to accomplish a Transformable Change after 9/11. As Gen McChrystal explains how his traditional leadership was tailored from his father in Vietnam, Robert E. Lee and John Buford and now the environment, speed, scrutiny and sensitivity evolved in such a rapid manner it did not afford people the opportunity to reflect upon the differing complexity and content of the current situation.

Gen McChrystal discussed how the importance of leadership in a force that was spread over 20 countries with organizations that were not necessarily military. He emphasized the importance of the need to get key leaders together not for a face-to-face meeting but through the use of video conferencing, chat, and email and phone conversations. Trust and confidence were the order of the day that needed to be established by all parties and throughout the conflict, building faith was paramount and recognized as a new type of leadership style.   

Although the missions of both leaders were different as one was the owner of a retail organization and the other was the leader of a military organization and subsequently a coalition force. They in their own right shared some common values and struggles in completion of their objectives.

As discussed in Brown (2011,) both leaders had a need to develop their respective transformational strategies in a manner that highlighted core characteristics like: individual autonomy, sensitivity to the needs of customers and employees, support, openness of available communications channel and risk behavior. Sharing the vision, empowering the individual, developing trust and rewarding performance were also priorities that lead both leaders to successful champagnes and objectives.

Brown (2011,) also states that the Relative Strength of Corporate Culture is characterized through an organizations basic value that are intensely held and widely disseminated through out an organization like the six stanza Ranger creed. Another area that both leaders exemplified in was the Strategy-Cultural Matrix. Much like Brown (2011,) discusses transformational changes can be more effectively accomplished if the organizational culture is taken into consideration. The four strategies or basic alternatives utilized in determining transformational change are: manage the change (risk management,) reinforce the culture (negligible risk,) manage around the culture (manageable risk) and finally change the strategy to fit the culture (unacceptable risk).

To sum up the outlooks and successes of these two fine leaders who realized early on that the key to success is the ability to be totally honest with not only your staff, or in the case of Gen McChrystal, his command. But to be brutally honest with yourself, realizing how Gen McChrystal so eloquently put it: “I came to believe that a leader isn’t good because they’re right; they’re good because they’re willing to learn and to trust.

References:

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

McIngvale, J. D. (2013). Influencer training helps Texas retailer save millions and prosper in economic recession. [Web]. Retrieved from www.Vitalsmarts.com

McChrystal, S. (Performer) (2011). Stanley McChrystal: Listen, learn. then lead [Web]. Retrieved from www.TED.com

A631.5.4.RB_LarsonKurt, Leading System Wide Change

Typically leaders and managers generally come from the ranks they formally once manage. Exceptions to this would be the military officer who was once enlisted and thus prohibited from assuming a command they were in as enlisted. That said those who once were part of a work force who aspired to and moved to a leadership position, often have conflicting allegiances. Do they owe an allegiance to their former co-workers, those who hired them for their current position, or the shareholders or taxpayer in the case of public service?

In my humble opinion the answer is… all of them which in itself can quickly become a conflicting quagmire of being pulled in too many directions in an attempt to appease, conduct business and maintain previous working relationships and not burn any bridges. But that is one reason why we are hired into leadership positions, for our ability to be flexible, yet still get the job done.

As discussed in Brown (2011,) today’s leaders and managers face changes that are products of both recession and financial setbacks which can inhibit an organizations desire to innovate, transform and renew itself just to meet the changing forces in todays global economy. Mark Herd, CEO of Hewlett-Packard so eloquently sums it up by his analysis: “We cannot live in the past, Hewlett-Packard wants to be on the news channel, not the history channel.       

From my viewpoint for a leader/manager to be successful in an organization, a code of conduct from which a benchmark can be established would be beneficial and prudent for any leader to aspire and grow in a leadership position and become a true asset to an organization, its personnel, suppliers and customers as the case may be. To put it another way, why would any organization relationship want to conduct business with any organization that does not insist upon respect, professionalism and courtesy toward its employees?

A true leader and innovator that I have recently looked favorably upon is Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell.

Mr. Bonsignore acknowledges that some critical success factors, like cash flow concerns and future earnings were a result of under anticipation of the difficulty of the degree that the merger between Honeywell and Allies Signal were. He further stated that the two differing cultures and organizational methods between the two companies would be ironed out as time progressed by creating a newer culture from the best attributes of both companies.

He says that Honeywell will compensate and reward people that look for best practices from both companies in creating a new corporate culture and punish those who do not. Although I find the latter portion of his statement a bit harsh, I am not in Mr. Bonsignore’s shoes and believe his sincerity is apparent in both his words and actions. Honeywell will be successful simply because of the company’s method of open communications between its employees, customers and the general public.

For example: the Bendix brake issue that plagued an extremely small percentage of the operational school busses. Mr. Bonsignore’s decision to alert       the operators and recall the control units at great expense to the organization, and not wait for individual unit failures is indicative of his willingness to give back to the community. Much like his assistance with home restoration and improvement in communities that Honeywell has a presence.

Reference:

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

A631.4.4.RB_LarsonKurt, INSEAD Reflection

What do you see as some of the major benefits and drawbacks of self-managed teams?

Some of the major advantages of the self-managed team as discussed in brown (2011,) would be the level of involvement the team, such as a permanent team for ongoing and continuous projects or the temporary team that might come together for the purpose of solving, creating or improving a single event, product or project. Project management teams are wrought with members whose expertise is needed on a temporary basis lasting for an indefinite period. The concern is the threat to the individual’s primary position and the need to back fill that position during an extended absence.

Some drawbacks or warning signs of a self-managed team might include the team itself is inappropriate for the task, people or context of the project. Also discussed in Brown (2011,) the organizational culture may not be adaptive toward change to the self-managed teams and consequently would not be supportive of the concept. Management and leadership roles may be somewhat confusing and perceived as a threat toward their positions, or the organization does not reward high performance might be faced with issues and concerns of its members including limited opportunities for advancement.     

Would you like to work within such a team?

I actually do work with-in such a team. My role as a subcommittee chair in DC offers me the opportunity to collaborate with fellow aviation experts from various branches of the federal government. While I may be the chair, I often relinquish the meeting and conversation to a particular expert of a topic/problem we have in discussion. The purpose of course is to put the issue at hand with-in grasp of the best-qualified individual and the decision point made at the level closest to an issue or problem. I insist upon the use of Roberts Rules of Order as methods of insuring those contingencies are met and all members have a say in the discussion.

What competencies would you need to develop to be an effective external manager of a self-managed work team?

Competencies like those discussed in Bergen (2002,) whereby the premise behind self-management is that employees can and do take an active role in regulating their performance. They do so by setting their own goals, monitoring their behavior related to those goals, and rewarding themselves for goal achievement.

Bergen’s seven key elements of self-management:

(1) self-assessment and reality check, (2) goal setting and action planning, (3) a written contract, (4) constructive thought patterns, (5) designing rewards, (6) self-monitoring, and (7) self-reinforcement. Each step is demonstrated below in an example of the first author modifying his writing behavior.

Self-assessment, as the term suggests, requires individuals to carefully analyze what they perceive to be their own abilities, competencies, weaknesses, skills, interests, values, and goals. Some organizations provide employees with forms or questionnaires that are used to develop this information.

Goal setting and action planning: setting a goal or end result and utilizing milestones or timelines as a gage or indicator toward assessing your progress and distance from the goal.

Written contract in which a set up of real contingencies involving other people and conditions of a consequence and/or outcome are agreed upon in advance.

Constructive thought patterns are entertained prior to beginning a task and while performing it, individuals should engage in positive (constructive) thoughts about that activity and its accomplishment. In particular, individuals are more motivated and better prepared to accomplish a task after they have engaged in self-talk and positive mental imagery.

Developing rewards and the type of awards anticipated prior to an achievement or milestone reached early or at a premium.

Self monitoring or keeping track of progress toward a goal, milestone or outcome.

Self-reinforcement and self-evaluation of a goal reached or the anticipation of a goal reached and the reward for a job well done.

References:

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

Bergen, C. W. V., Soper, B., & Gaster, B. (2002). EFFECTIVE SELF-MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 1-0_11. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/214230612?accountid=27203

A631.3.4.RB_LarsonKurt, Feedback and Goals

Feed back with respect to performance including short and long-term milestones and timelines are paramount to a healthy working relationship, career advancement and productivity. As example in Brown (2011) it discusses that without previously set goals instilled during a feedback session, a significant improvement in performance cannot be expected.

Interventions as described in Bigby (1981) are designed as such toward the enhancement of worker productivity and are divided into two distinct categories.  The first is a strategic one, which is dependent upon a large amount of external assistance such as Organizational Development type of techniques including survey feedback and process interventions. The second type has strategies, which may require a certain amount of expert assistance from the on-set, they for the most part are readily available for implementation and maintainability by management like performance feedback, and its logical extension, goal setting, are two such techniques.

On another front studies examining the impact of performance information on motivation, both feedback and goal setting have been found to improve performance. And as discussed by Watson (1983,) an analysis of the results showed that explicit goal setting improved group performance with or without feedback. Neither type of feedback alone helped performance, but both types negatively affected either goal selection or satisfaction with performance. It should also be note worthy that the act of goal setting has a more positive effect upon workers than feedback.

In todays world of a global economy and market place business must wrestle with the questions of what to sell, who to sell to and how to win over the consumer over the competition. Duncan (2001,) explains further that “The essential elements to answer these questions involve critical thinking about current situation and recent past, a cauldron for debate to formulate shared assumptions about the future, analysis to gauge impact of assumptions, creativity and innovation to develop response to a changing environment, leadership and decision making to build consensus for solution, and objectives and action to bring vision to reality” and maintain the critical need to have the continued ability of goal improvement and proactive feedback to employees of all age groups to ensure the delicate balancing act of employee reward and correction go hand-in-hand as to not drive employees to the competition.

In other words, there must be the correct amount of positive performance feedback to goal setting as a method of keeping valued employees positively engaged and on-track with organizational policies, goals and vision, including being cognizant of the differing age groups that are requiring routine feedback. For example, in Brown (2011,) the organization Ernst and Young reports that 85% of its compliment of younger workers insist upon frequent and candid feedback sessions as compared to 50% for older workers.

This could also be attributed to todays generation X and Y whom want instant gratification as compared to older generations who are comfortable with investing in the future and receiving less but substantial feedback sessions.  

As organizations become more flexible and open, the need for effective cooperation increases. The typical approaches to addressing intergroup conflict and lack of coordination often result in relatively shallow, ineffective strategies. Galves (1994,) addresses what an organization can do in the here and now to address intergroup conflict, lack of coordination and role clarification as a method of addressing problematic conflict.

One avenue of addressing this type of conflict is the interface meeting. The Interface Meeting is a technique based on the Gestalt approach to organization development as described in "Authentic Management" by Stanley Herman and Michael Korenich and "Organizational Consulting" by Edwin Nevis.

The Interface Meeting uses the following principles of the Gestalt approach:

Awareness is the key to positive change,

If people in organizations can become aware of the specific, concrete ways in which they create the reality that's bothering them, they will take creative and effective action to make things better,

The first step in change is understanding and accepting what is real right now,

Authentic, direct, meaningful contact between the actors in a conflict is a key to making things better.

Since no pressure exists toward problem resolution, group members are free to develop action plans, make things better until the situation is fully explored in depth and detail with specific, concrete examples including the design of the Interface Meeting is as follows:

The facilitator starts by giving a short lecturette on conflict in organizations making the following points,

Conflict is a natural consequence of committed, bright, energetic people working together in the same organization,

Conflict is typically a reflection of real issues that need to be addressed in order to achieve high-level performance,

The only choice the organization has about conflict is how, when and where it is expressed. There is no way of keeping it from being expressed. If it isn't expressed openly and effectively managed, it goes underground and surfaces in the form of missed deadlines, broken agreements, delays and errors,

Conflict is a great learning opportunity.

                                                            References

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

Bray, S. (2009, Dec 23). Goal-setting. Fox Creek Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/442602644?accountid=27203

BIGBY, D. G. (1981). IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH FEEDBACK AND GOAL SETTING. (Order No. 8200926, University of Houston). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 91-91 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/303149755?accountid=27203. (303149755).

Watson, C. (1983). Motivational effects of feedback and goal-setting on group performance.

Reference: Galves, A. (1994). The interface meeting: A tool for addressing intergroup conflict. SuperVision, 55(8), 3. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/195598358?accountid=27203